top of page
IMG_5450-EDIT.jpg

Alfred C. Lancey

Alfred C. Lancey, "between the devil and the deep"

Alfred C Lancey was first interviewed for the investigation on Thursday, June 25, 1914. He was in his early 40s, and had been chief of police three times. 

 

Lancey was born in Quebec in either 1872 or 1870. In 1893, Lancey and his wife Annie had their first son, Walter. He was followed by Ada in 1894, Effie in 1896, and Albert in 1898. In the 1901 census, the family was living in Winnipeg, Manitoba. [1]

 

In the middle of December 1908, Laney started his first tenure as chief of police in Edmonton. He held the position until he resigned in March 1911 [2]. He held the position again in September 1911 and resigned in September 1912 [3]. The final time, he took office February 2, 1914 and after 3 tumultuous months, he resigned May 21, 1914. [4]

The Police Investigation

One of the big questions of the investigation is how and when did Lancey get the job the third time. The previous chief of police, Silas Carpenter, was fired February 2, 1914, clearing the way for Lancey to take the position that same day - why exactly he was fired is up for debate. (Both Commissioner Booth’s and Mayor McNamara’s write-ups go into more detail on possible reasons Carpenter was fired)

 

Lancey comes across as reasonably honest in his interviews. His demeanor may be in part because by June 25 he had already left his position with the police; unlike others such as Mayor McNamara and Commissioner Booth, he doesn’t have a position he is trying to save.

 

The story he tells of how he got the job differs significantly from Mayor McNamara’s version. 

 

According to McNamara, Lancey approached him in early December 1913, after the mayoral election, about the position and asked him whether or not he was keeping Chief Carpenter on. [5, 6] Lancey strongly disputes both these claims. [7]

 

One of the few things these two men do agree upon is that they met in McNamara’s office on the 7th floor of the Tegler Block [8], in the heart of downtown at 10189 101St, in December 1913 and discussed the position [9, 10]. Both of them differ in their details about the conversation and in McNamara’s version he doesn’t remember how the meeting came to be. [10]

​

Lancey does remember and he tells it as follows.

The St. Regis Hotel

The day after the mayoral election, December 9, 1913, Lancey was upstairs in his room at the St. Regis Hotel, 10201 97St.[11] The hotel, which he owned, had been one of his primary focuses for the last two years, along with homesteading his farm, 30 miles out of the city. [13] 

 

That day in December his manager came to him and told him that the newly elected mayor, William McNamara, was there to see him and was in the back office.

 

Lancey went down and “as soon as [he] went in [McNamara] held out his hand”; he took it, they shook hands, and Lancey congratulated him. McNamara said “it was a democratic victory, and a few remarks of that kind; then he asked [him] if [he] could care to go back to the city’s employ” [14].

 

“In what capacity?” Lancey asked.

 

“Well, your old job,” McNamara responded

 

“Mr. McNamara, have you fully made up your mind that Chief Carpenter is to go?”

 

“My mind was made up a long time ago,” McNamara answered.

 

“That is rather an embarrassing position, Chief Carpenter was recommended by me, and got the appointment through me. He was an old friend of mine, but nevertheless if he has got to go I would have no objection to taking the position.” [15]

 

After this, McNamara said he had to continue on, he had some other folks to call on - he was going around thanking his supporters. [16]

 

Before leaving, McNamara told Lancey that he would make an appointment with him to come to his office in the Tegler Block, as he wished to speak further. [17]

 

A few days later he received a call from McNamara and afterwards, Lancey went down to have the requested meeting. Lancey doesn’t remember exactly when this happened - “[he] never expected to give testimony” on it - though he says it was before the 1st of January 1914. [18]

The Meeting

McNamara’s version of the meeting is vague at best. The clearest thing he says about the meeting is “what I expected him [Lancey] to do was to clean up the town and clean it up quickly, and keep it clean.” He says that Lancey agreed to do those “things” and that he, McNamara, believed him. [19]

 

Ernest Seymour was another former Edmonton cop. In 1913 he was one of the shareholders of the St. Regis Hotel. He also had some “business dealings” (Lancey doesn’t specify what this means) with McNamara a few weeks before the December election. [20]

 

Lancey and McNamara do agree that in the December meeting they discussed wanting to bring Seymour back on to the force. McNamara hesitantly admits this in his interview, saying he “thinks” this conversation happened. 

 

He insists though he told Lancey that any further discussion about police staffing would need to be between Lancey and and his new boss, Commissioner Booth. [21]

 

In Lancey’s recollection, McNamara told him he wanted to also bring back Deputy Chief Wright and Constable Carroll. 

 

Constable Carroll was dismissed sometime during Chief Carpenter’s tenure “for being late at the hearing of a district court case, in which he was to give evidence”. In October 1913, he was represented by Joe Clarke and won his wrongful dismissal suit against the city. He was awarded $85 in damages.[22]

 

Lancey describes Carroll as a “faithful officer” and he agreed with this plan to bring the two men back. He does agree with McNamara that he suggested bringing Seymour back on as well and says McNamara was “quite agreeable to [Seymour].” [23]

 

McNamara and Lancey discussed “general matters” as well and McNamara told him he would do his best to see that Lancey got the position. [24].

 

Whatever McNamara did worked because on February 3, 1914, the Edmonton Bulletin announced that Chief Carpenter had been dismissed and Chief Lancey had been appointed. [25]

References

  1. “Fourth Census of Canada, 1901” (RG31 - Statistic Canada), Item ID 33761110, Statistics Canada

  2. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 886

  3. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 887

  4. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 888

  5. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 895

  6. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 101

  7. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 898

  8. Henderson Directories, Henderson’s Edmonton City Directory (1914), (Winnipeg: Henderson Directories, 1914) pg. 675, accessed through Internet Archive 

  9. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 260

  10. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 895

  11. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 102

  12. Henderson Directories, Henderson’s Edmonton City Directory (1914), (Winnipeg: Henderson Directories, 1914) pg. 236, accessed through Internet Archive 

  13. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 888

  14. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 896

  15. Ibid.

  16. Ibid.

  17. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 897

  18. Ibid.

  19. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 108

  20. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 895

  21. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 109

  22. “Gets Damages From City”, The Edmonton Bulletin, (Edmonton, AB), October 29, 1913

  23. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 897

  24. Ibid.

  25. “New Commissioners Dismiss Chief of Police Carpenter and Appoint Ex-Chief of Police Lancey to Post”, The Edmonton Bulletin, (Edmonton, AB), February 4, 1914

The Administration Policy

One of the items Lancey and the mayor-elect McNamara discussed when they met in December 1913 was their plan for policy regarding “social evils” (sex work) in Edmonton. 

 

McNamara wasn’t for an “open town” but he thought that “houses of prostitution” were necessary in Western cities. Edmonton had thousands of single men passing through and McNamara was of the opinion that sex workers were necessary for the wellbeing of the men in the town. This was not an uncommon view of sex work and masculinity.

 

McNamara had no objections to the houses running as long as they weren’t a nuisance to their local community. [1]

 

Lancey says he had never heard of a policy of this kind, permission without segregation, but he thought it could work. For himself, he says “it is well known I have been a segregationist for years and believe in it.” [2]

 

He was willing to give this “gates-ajar” policy a try, adding that if houses were found to be a nuisance, “it would be an easy matter to have them  moved.” [3]

 

As for the definition of “nuisance” - the women were at the mercy of their neighbours. Lancey and Booth rely on “reports” and “complaints” from community members but what counts as a nuisance seems to be cases of NIMBY-ism - not in my backyard. 

 

Lancey’s job wasn't to see if the women were being excessively loud in the evenings for example - merely if neighbours wouldn’t “tolerate” having them there, they needed to move.

 

An example of this was a house on 4th St (now 104st) and Hardisty Ave (now 98 Ave), at the base of the hill, on the north-east corner. In the 1914 Henderson’s this is 9803 104St and is listed as vacant [4] 

 

Booth reported to Lancey repeated complaints from the neighbours about this house. [5] Eventually, Lancey warned the real estate agent who rented out the house, Mr. White of White and Company,  “not to rent to a person of that class” as “this was not a neighbourhood in which a house of that nature should be situated, and there would be sure to be complaints”.  [6]

 

Mr. White appears to have been left to his own devices on how to decide if a potential tenant engaged in sex work or not.

The gates-ajar policy in practice

While McNamara and Lancey agreed on implementing the gates-ajar policy, Manville S Booth was actually Lancey’s direct boss and his take on sex work in the city did not align with the administration policy.

 

It is important to note though, that in his interviews Booth tries very hard (and unsuccessfully in my opinion) to claim he did not know of the gates-ajar policy. His claim is that if such a policy did exist, he does not remember it. [7]

 

His plan had been to “wipe out prostitution” and when referring to the brothels says he “had every expectation that [Lancey] would wipe them off the face of the earth” [8]

 

Alfred Lancey describes his experience of being the Chief of Police in early 1914 as being caught “between the devil and the deep” [9] 

Instructions from Booth

One of the things that is missing is written evidence from Booth regarding his instructions to Lancey. There are only a couple letters that Booth wrote that the lawyers were able to find in their research. The rest of the instructions both Booth and Lancey say were done verbally.

 

The result of this is a “he said-he said” situation.

 

Of the letters from Booth that the lawyers found, one is from February 9, 1914. Lancey says this was the first set of instructions he received from his new boss. 

 

Included in the letter are the following instructions:

 

“Arrest or drive from the City all keepers of bawdy houses generally known as madams. Arrest or drive from the City all women generally known as street-walkers and solicitors for vice. Stop all gambling where there takes place what is known as the house rake-off.” [10]

 

After receiving the letter, Lancey went to speak with Mayor McNamara. He wanted to know what exactly was the policy of the administration, as these instructions from Booth went against what he and McNamara had previously discussed.

 

This meeting was had with the Mayor and at least a couple of Aldermen. Lancey believes Alderman Kinney and Alderman Clarke were there. He also thinks Alderman May might have been there, but he wasn’t sure. [11] 

 

At this meeting, he confirmed with the Mayor and the Aldermen that the policy of the city was to leave the brothels alone unless neighbours complained, at which point, have the brothel move to somewhere else in the city [12, 13]

 

The Mayor added that he “objected” to the “streetwalkers” and the “pimps” and Lancey “did not think [he] would have any trouble getting rid of them” [14]

 

Towards the end of Feb he received additional instructions from Booth, this time verbally, to raid houses [15]

 

The day after, Lancey called on McNamara and asked him if Booth was aware of the policy. McNamara said yes and Lancey explained he had received instructions to raid the houses if complaints came in (rather than just move them). McNamara said he would speak with Booth [16].

 

Booth reiterated his instructions to raid the houses again around March 7th or 8th. Lancey says Booth told him they should raid a few houses, to make a “splash” and “get some advertising of what [they] were doing.” [17]

 

At this point, Lancey asked Booth himself if he was aware of the policy of the city administration. Booth admitted yes, he did know but added “we said we that we would clean up the city and it does not look as if we are doing it.” [18]

 

Lancey then asked him “you don’t want to carry out the policy of the administration?"

 

Booth responded “Yes, but we can do little of this.”

 

“Mr. Booth, are you working with the Temperance and Moral Reform or are you working for the administration? [] they are the only people that at the present time I know of that are objecting to these houses.” Lancey replied [19]

 

Lancey also added that the Temperance and Moral Reform would “cut [Booth's] head off very very quick if they got a chance, meaning that they would fire him out of his position if they could.”

 

Booth told him he knew that.

 

“Why do you want to pander to them? What do you want to raid the houses for, if it is to please them? Lancey asked.

 

“I guess we better let them go and carry out that policy,” responded Booth.

 

Lancey said that would suit him. [20]

 

During this time, Lancey says the morality officers had been after the “streetwalkers” and “pimps” with success. 

 

On March 6th, Blanche Bodney’s house was raided at 253 Queens Avenue (now 10251 99St). Lancey said this was to comply with Booth’s instructions. Originally he says the morality department raided a couple houses towards the end of February, but it is shown in the morality book that only her house was raided in early March. [21]

 

It is possible that this house was raided simply in the hopes of Lancey getting Booth off his back; no additional information is supplied as to why her house specifically. 

 

Blanche Bodney’s house may have been raided in an attempt to pacify Booth by arresting one of the “keepers” or “madams”. As per his February 9th letter, Booth had instructed Lancey to arrest “the keepers of bawdy houses generally known as madams.”

 

Again though, Lancey does not provide additional information as to why this house in early March.

Moving houses

There are no other raids listed in the morality book for March, April, and May but Lancey says the police were moving women regularly.

 

He says Booth gave him 20-25 houses verbally that complaints had been made about. Lancey did not receive these complaints directly - Booth did not disclose who the complaints were from but says they were all by telephone or in-person.

 

An important note is there was no letter sent in with a complaint and none are documented in writing. [22]

 

Unfortunately, not only do the specific complaints not survive, but the police do not seem to have a record of the houses or women who were told to move during this time.

References

  1. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 893

  2. Ibid.

  3. Ibid.

  4. Henderson Directories, Henderson’s Edmonton City Directory (1914), (Winnipeg: Henderson Directories, 1914) pg. 236, accessed through Internet Archive 

  5. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 908

  6. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 911

  7. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 2, part III, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1201

  8. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 454

  9. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 914

  10. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 903

  11. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 892

  12. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 899

  13. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 901

  14. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 899

  15. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 903

  16. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 905

  17. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 906

  18. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 907

  19. Ibid.

  20. Ibid.

  21. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 904

  22. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18, Vol 2, part II, Edmonton, AB, 1914) pg. 908

© 2025 Toby Grant

 Powered and secured by Wix

bottom of page