top of page
IMG_5450-EDIT.jpg

Manville Booth

The Commissioner Who Really Hopes He'll Get Away With It

Manville S Booth took office as the City Commissioner of Safety and Health on February 1, 1914. In this position he was in charge of the Police Department, Health Department, Fire Department, and the Street Department and Licenses. [1]

 

He was A.C. Lancey’s direct boss and throughout the investigation he does his best to sound as if he absolutely, definitely did everything above board.

 

Booth was, however, in my opinion, either a poor liar or incredibly incompetent at his job. He was interviewed 3 different times as part of the investigation and each time he manages to contradict himself.

 

There are three big questions that the lawyers grill him about. 

  1. What was his role in the firing of previous chief of police, Silas Carpenter, and then subsequently the hiring of Alfred C. Lancey into that position?

  2. Was he aware of the gates ajar policy of the city administration?

  3. Did he know how many brothels were running in the city?


 

He tries to sell himself as an innocent bystander who knew nothing about any politics around the change in police management and was just supporting his boss, the newly elected mayor, William J. McNamara. [2]

 

For the last two questions he tries to convince everyone that he knew absolutely nothing about the policy or that there were any brothels (minus 1) in the city and that he can definitely back all that up with reports. [3]

 

When questioned by the lawyers, he plays up a faulty memory to a point that it would be concerning if it wasn’t so ridiculous.

​

​

​

Part 1: The Firing of Carpenter and the Hiring of Lancey

We’ll start with the first question - what was his role in the firing of Silas Carpenter and the subsequent hiring of Alfred C. Lancy? Biggar, the lawyer, starts by asking him about his role in the change of the chief of police. Booth says that not long after he started in his role, the newly-elected mayor, William McNamara, asked to meet with him. He says that McNamara told him that he had “made up his mind we will have to let Chief Carpenter go and I think we had better put in Chief Lancey” [4]. He also says that McNamara told him the city was “rotten”, that he had made his own investigation, and that this was why he wanted Carpenter out [5]. Booth explains that he went along with it, as McNamara was his boss and he, Booth, had no real opinion of it. [6]. Booth confirms he started his role as Commissioner on February 1, 1914. When it comes to the Carpenter-Lancey shuffle, Booth can’t quite remember when everything happened, and then, when pushed, suggests that Lancey took over on February 4th, 5th, or 6th. [7]. However, February 3, 1914 the Edmonton Bulletin reported that Carpenter had been fired and by the end of the day, Lancey had been sworn in. [8] [9] Biggar does not mention the date inconsistency to him but switches to ask Booth when exactly he met with McNamara and discussed firing Carpenter. Booth assures Biggar that the meeting definitely happened after he started and was not discussed with him at all before February 1st. [10] If that is true, I am impressed with the speed they are able to work at.

Booth's Investigation

Booth then explains that he did his own mini (my word) investigation into the state of the police. He said it was for his “own benefit to know what [he] was taking over.” [11]. He presented his investigation results to the Safety and Health Committee and the City Council on February 17, 1914.[12] An important thing to note - Booth and McNamara’s investigations were not just done out of curiosity on their own parts. There had been some pressure from members of the Edmonton community for a judicial review of the police department. At this moment I am not exactly sure when those requests started, though I have seen suggestions that there was some push for it as of August 1913; I am still working on confirming that. What I do know is that on February 6th, 1914, the Safety and Health Committee (the committee overseeing the police) received a letter from the Quarterly Official Board of the Metropolitan Methodist Church requesting a judicial inquiry into the police. [13]. While this request is mostly sloughed off by the committee [see “Timeline”], Booth embarks on his own investigation. On February 17 he presented a report that “a total disregard of responsibility, of esprit de corps, and of discipline existed during the last several months.”[14]. He then goes on to list some examples: A “raw constable” given keys and no instruction. The constable was called away and a prisoner escaped $540.15 was lost, that was personal property of someone who had been arrested and brought it. There was “jealousy existing between the Morality, the Detectives, and the Patrolman squads” and that information was not being shared between the teams [15]. Booth is questioned heavily about this report in this interview with Biggar. Biggar asks him what were the actions taken as a result of his findings. Booth says he and Lancey lectured the staff [16] and they let two men go [17]. Biggar asks him why they only reprimanded most of the men and fired only two - Booth says it was because he found that the “conditions” of the department were to blame, not the actions of the individual men [18] and, essentially, he did not want to jeopardize their careers [19]. Booth repeatedly tries to avoid answering questions by saying the answers Biggar is looking for are in various reports. Biggar pushes him, telling him that he is looking for information that either isn’t in the reports or wouldn’t be expected to be found in the reports [20]. This goes on for a bit, with Booth trying to either deflect to the reports or asking Biggar if he wants to know the specifics of why a certain constable was fired. Biggar tells him he is not looking for the specifics, but the general situation that led Booth to feel they only had to replace a couple of men. When he doesn’t get a satisfactory answer, Biggar asks whose duty it would have been to provide instruction and reprimand the men. Booth answers the superior officers [21] This is the first time Booth says how Carpenter specifically fell down on his duties.

Newel Interviews Booth

Later, a Mr. Newel, acting on behalf of Silas Carpenter, interviews Booth further about the firing of Carpenter. Did Booth know that every man Carpenter fired for drunkenness was rehired under Lancey? No, he didn’t. [22] Newel asks Booth about his comment that Carpenter was not giving proper instructions to his men. Booth says he never says that. The judge reminds him he did. Booth makes a vague comment that the lack of instruction will be noted in a report from February, but he, Booth, hasn’t seen the report since then so he really couldn’t be sure. (Fun fact - this isn’t the only time Booth is going to say he didn’t say something only for the judge to remind him that yes, he did indeed). Newel asks Booth if was aware of the book Carpenter had, with the orders he issued, that he had the men sign, presumably to acknowledge they had been made aware of said orders. Booth says he never saw it and did not know it existed. Newel asks Booth if he was aware that Carpenter had repeatedly asked for an investigation into the police. “To the best of my knowledge he did not ask for an investigation,” replies Booth. [22] At the end of his interview that day Biggar takes a moment to note that Booth wouldn’t have known about Carpenter’s request for an investigation. That request happened at a meeting before Booth was Commissioner. The judge reminds everyone that Booth had already said he did not know anything about that request. And then, whether through sheer incompetence, ego, foolishness, or a strong self-destructive streak Booth says, outloud: “Excuse me, I was not there, but I did see it afterwards in the meeting minutes.” (emphasis mine) [24] Sadly, there was no comment made by the judge or the lawyers that was noted in the transcript. Stay tuned for questions two and three where Booth tries to convince everyone that he had no idea about the gates ajar policy. Even though his boss and his immediate subordinate say they talked to him about it.

Summary of Question 1

What was his role in the firing of the previous chief of police, Silas Carpenter, and then subsequently the hiring of Alfred C. Lancey into that position? So what is the answer to question 1, after all that? What role did Booth actually play in the change in police management? Let’s review the evidence: Did Booth and Mayor McNamara discuss the change before Booth started? Personally, I suspect they did. McNamara’s desire to replace Carpenter was not a secret and had been noted in the papers, at least by January 28, 1914 [25]. Of course, this does not mean that McNamara and Booth did discuss it before February 1st. What stands out for me is the speed that they are able to replace Carpenter with Lancey - Booth starts the 1st and by February 3, Lancey is the new Chief of Police. It is possible that 1914’s bureaucracy moved fast but on the question of did they discuss it before Booth started, I am speculating yes, but it is only speculation. Were Booth and McNamara justified in firing Carpenter? Just looking at Booth’s testimony I am very hesitant to say he was. This question is examined repeatedly throughout the investigation, with many different people. To avoid jumping ahead I will try to stick strictly to Booth’s evidence. In my opinion, Booth did not do due diligence in confirming that Carpenter was incompetent before firing him. I believe he agreed to fire him and then went about gathering evidence to support the decision. His report on his findings of the police department is not presented until February 17th and when Newel asks him specifics about Carpenter’s work, such as Carpenter having staff sign the order book, Booth claims he has never seen the book. And let’s not forget my favourite contradiction that Booth makes during his interviews regarding Carpenter - he claims he had no idea Carpenter asked for an investigation. And then, when handed an out by Biggar, who says he did not start in his position until after the meeting when Carpenter made the request, Booth jumps in and says he did review those meeting minutes at a later date. As I said at the beginning, at best I believe Booth can claim, at best, incompetence on his part (we’ll see more of this when looking at what he knew about the brothels in the city) but I suspect he was in on the fix. Stay tuned for Booth trying to convince people he was completely oblivious to the sex work in the city.

References

  1. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 409

  2. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 410

  3. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 3, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1699

  4. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 409

  5. Ibid.

  6. Ibid.

  7. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 410

  8. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 409

  9. “New Commissioners Dismiss Chief of Police Carpenter and Appoint Ex-Chief of Police Lancey to Post”, The Edmonton Bulletin,(Edmonton, AB) February 3, 1914 

 

  1. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 410

  2. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 412

  3. Manville S. Booth, “Report #2 of Commissioner of Safety and Health”, (report, Edmonton, AB, 1914)

  4. Secretary Metropolitan Methodist Church Board, Booth, S.M., Edmonton, AB (February 6, 1914)

  5. Manville S. Booth, “Report #2 of Commissioner of Safety and Health”, (report, Edmonton, AB, 1914)

  6. Ibid.

  7. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 413

  8. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 415

  9. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 418

  10. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 421

  11. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 417

  12. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 418

  13. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 460

  14. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 461

  15. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 467

  16. “Riotous Language And Wild Scenes At Council Meetings”, The Edmonton Bulletin,(Edmonton, AB) January 28, 1914 

Part 2: The Brothels and the Gates Ajar

As a reminder, the questions this section is looking at are: Was Booth aware of the gates ajar policy of the city administration? Did he know how many brothels were running in the city? ​ To start off, let's have a look at what the "gates ajar" policy even was. The gates ajar policy was to allow the brothels to run as long as they “are not a nuisance”. Lancey says that he had previously only seen two other policies in Canadian policing regarding brothels - segregation or a closed town. [1] Segregation was similar to a red light district - sex workers worked in a specific area of the municipality. Closed refers to a town or city not allowing sex work at all. This doesn’t mean there wasn’t sex work, just that officially the municipality was against it. It is hard to say where exactly the gates ajar policy came from or when it was put in place - with the exception of A.C. Lancey, senior members of municipal leadership either deny they ever were involved in a conversation about such a policy or claim they never heard of it at all. ​ Booth falls under the claims-he-never-heard-of-it-at-all category. For this write-up I will try to stick as closely as possible to Booth’s evidence and what he claims. Every person involved has their own version of the story that they tell and almost every senior official interviewed attempts to throw everyone else under the bus. There is a significant amount of he said-he said. And just like before, I feel that Booth is a terrible liar, very incompetent at his job, or, probably, both. He tries to sell himself as both being aware and responsible for the different parts of his job but also being completely removed from any gates ajar policy. ​ A note on the order Part 2 starts with question 3 as it ended up being the more complex one to review.

Question 3 - the Brothels

Did Booth know how many brothels were in the city?


I’ll start at the end and work backwards, because what Booth claims he knew gets complicated.

Booth's claim(s)

Booth claims on Friday, June 27 that he only knew of one brothel running continuously from the beginning of February to the end of May, 1914. It’s the one next to Chown’s Hardware (9802 Jasper Ave, now Canada Place) [2] [3]


But a week later on Friday, July 3 he only knows of one brothel running continuously and that one is at Empress Cleaning at 506 Namayo (now 10412 97 St).[4][5]


This isn’t even the silliest mistake he makes in his claim that he only knows of one.

 

The brothels he reported

He was interviewed for the first time on Wednesday, June 17. In that initial interview he tells Biggar, while attempting to make sure Biggar understands that he had not been operating under a gates ajar policy, that he had reported several suspected brothels to Lancey. [6] One at 4th and McKay (104 St and 99 ave) One just north of Jasper on 9th (109 St) (he says the people who phoned him about it will corroborate this). [7] One down along Kinistino and Isabella (96 St and 104Aave) (again, he says he was phoned about this one). [8] A second hand store just past Kennedy’s property on Fraser (Fraser is now 98 St) [9] There are several second hand stores either on 99 St or 97 St but I did not find one specifically on 98 St near someone named Kennedy. [10] One over Campbell’s bakery (10632 100 St, now a Vietnamese restaurant). [11] One between 14th and 15th on Jasper, next to livery yards (114 St and 115 St). The 1913 fire insurance map shows the Stables of Standard Express Cartage Co there. [12] One in a laundry just past 12th street on Jasper (now 112 St) There is a French laundry listed on Jasper just past 112 St - old address of 1126 Jasper W, now 11225 and 11225 Jasper Ave. There is Cashco there now. [13] [14] He goes on to say that he reported 40 or 50 brothels to Lancey and that in reporting them he “had every expectation [Lancey] would wipe them off the face of the earth” [15]. This is pretty early on in his interviews and this grandiose style claim of his supposed righteousness doesn’t last. I would also like to take a moment to note that this was one of the people responsible for deciding and enacting policy around sex work in the city. Very reassuring.

Booth's investigation and the reports

The Detectives

In the middle of February 1914 Booth decided to hire detectives from the Thiel Agency. [16] Please excuse the use of Wikipedia for the information on the agency, but at the moment, that is what I have. According to Wikipedia, the Thiel Agency was a “private detective agency formed in 1873 by George H.Thiel, a former Civil War spy and Pinkerton employee”. [17] Booth’s reasoning for hiring them was that “there were not enough arrests made and the fact weighed on me that I was responsible to the citizens for the conditions of the city…” [18] To be clear, this was not part of his February 17th report - he says he hired them around the 15th [19] or the 19th or 20th of February. [20]

The reports

He received reports every two to three days, supplied them to Lancey [21][22] and received a final report April 18, saying the town was fairly clean (absent from a lot of gambling and sex work). [23].


The reports are something I have struggled to understand. I have not found the original reports from the detectives (yet) so I have had to pull this together from the transcript, meeting minutes, and reports from Booth.


Some key points I have been able to establish are:
 

  • The reports say the town was fairly clean. [24]

  • The final report was received April 18, 1914. [25]

  • Booth says he gave the reports to Lancey and they disappeared. He had to get in touch with the manager of the agency in Winnipeg and ask for copies. [26]

  • Booth didn't notice the reports were missing until he was called to come in to be interviewed for the investigation. When he is interviewed on June 17, he says he will receive the copies in a couple days. [27]

  • Around May 6 or 7, Booth starts to get reports from two journalists that there were "considerable prostitutes going along right on the main street." [28]

  • Around May 8 or 9, Booth goes to see McNamara and tells him he thinks Lancey is double crossing him. McNamara says to fire him on the spot and Booth says no, he wants to do it right and collect evidence (to be clear, this is just from Booth. I will touch on what McNamara says happened elsewhere). [29][30]

The best man in America

I am not 100% what happened after that. Booth says he told McNamara he wanted to hire “the best man in America” to look into things and McNamara says he will give him some money to do so, which Booth seems to have gotten. [31] However, whether or not he actually hired someone is unclear. Biggar checks with Booth that the man didn’t come and Booth confirms that is true. [32] After this confirmation Booth talks about how he did his own investigation. He says he went around town and “leaned against fences and went in alleys and waited there and watched down alleys and I never saw anything or anybody approach me.” [33] But Booth says he started these investigations in February after he took office and continued them until about May 14. [34] He says he didn’t really find anything during that time that was worth reporting to the police. [35] My suspicion about these investigations, because of how they line up time wise, is that he tells Biggar about them to make it clear that he tried to look into things but didn’t find anything. How this helps his concern about being double-crossed though is unclear to me.

He doesn't know anything about the brothels

But how does this all fit into his claim that he didn’t know about the brothels in town? He provides the letter the detective agency sent that explains why “the best man in America” didn’t come and he does say he is doing so to provide “proof [he] was acting in good faith on the question”. [36] My opinion is that he shares all this in an attempt to demonstrate that he was doing his job. And that he didn’t know anything about the brothels. When interviewed on July 3rd he says the detectives did find a brothel here and there around town. Booth says because he was giving the reports to Lancey he assumed Lancey would deal with them, [37] but he does concede that he did not follow up. [38] Both Biggar and the judge point out that multiple houses appear repeatedly on the reports through February to April, indicating they remained open. Booth repeats, again, several times, that he only knew of the one house at Namayo 506. [39]

The Lace Curtains

One of Booth’s attempts to regulate sex work is through lace curtains. How you ask? Fantastic question.

The meeting

Sunday, May 17 Booth and Lancey met. Lancey says they met in Booth’s office [40], Booth says they met in Lancey’s office. [41] Wherever they met, meet they did. Booth had an issue with women putting lace curtains in their windows. He told Lancey to have the women on 1st St (now 101St) and Jasper Ave take the lace curtains off their windows and put something up instead like dark green curtains. [42] By way of explanation, Booth shares this anecdote: “The day before [Saturday the 16th] a tenant on 1st Street of a man had come to me and said that in the Eclipse Rooms, immediately opposite the Lewis Cafe, he had seen a woman taking a man to bed there during the day, and he says the lace curtains are just as much an advertisement as a red light.” - Booth [43]

Lace curtains mean advertising. Sometimes

He says he knew of “a great many splendid girls living in the Brown Block (10062 102St) and the Heiminck Block (10153 Jasper Ave)” and thinks that the lace curtains would insult married folks. [45] [46]. But don’t worry! Booth doesn’t forget he’s claiming he doesn’t know about the brothels - he immediately follows up with “I did not know of a bawdy house on 1st and Jasper except the one next to Chown’s” [47]


Booth doesn’t really have an answer for how to handle the “perfectly respectable people” who have lace curtains or exactly how this should all be handled at all. He just thinks that sex workers shouldn’t have lace curtains. [48]

To suspect is not to admit

The Wednesday (May 20) following this meeting about lace curtains, Booth sends a letter to Lancey that there are 23 brothels on 1st and Jasper and he wants them shut down. [49]. Biggar asks him about this statistic right after Booth reminds everyone he only knows about the house next to Chown’s. Booth says he has not admitted to knowing about them. Biggar reads his letter. Booth says he suspected there were houses but he didn’t know and there is a big difference between those two. [50] Honestly, I love this argument so much and I hope Booth sat in the witness box feeling very pleased with the loophole he just discovered. Booth says he gave that figure because the day before (May 19) an Edmonton Journal reporter had told him there were 100 to 150 houses in the town. When he wrote the letter on the 20th he “was pretty hot” and “just momentarily, I ran it up in my mind these houses which I suspected which had been pointed out to me…run to seventeen or eighteen, and then I added a few more for good measure.” [51] Biggar, very reasonably, doesn’t particularly buy what Booth is selling. He asks Booth why then he gave instructions regarding the lace curtains - he must have suspected some places then. [52] Booth, incredibly, responds with “Absolutely no.” Biggar tells him he is unable to follow him. [53] Booth tries to say that the Sunday he said the curtains should come down he probably did suspect some houses but he didn’t know about any, besides the one. But on Wednesday, when he sent the letter, he suspected 18 and wanted to round the number up to get a reaction from Lancey. [54].

No, it doesn't make sense

Don’t worry if you’re having trouble following. I am pretty confident everyone had trouble following this shuffle. Don’t forget, just a few minutes previously, when talking about the lace curtains Booth said he knew of “a great many splendid girls” in the area. [55].

A quick review

That is a lot with several strange logical leaps and contradictions in Booth’s claim that he didn’t know about the brothels in the city.

 

Key points are:

  • Booth hired outside detectives to review how much there was for sex work and gambling in the city. He says those reports said the city was “fairly clean” minus a few houses here and there. [56]

  • He gave Lancey the reports and expected he would chase people out of town. [57], [58]

  • The judge and Biggar point out that multiple houses appear repeatedly in the reports over the months.[59]

  • Booth claims he doesn’t know about that. [60]

  • Sunday, May 17 Booth tells Lancey to have the women on Jasper Ave and 1st street take down their lace curtains and that he knew “of a great many splendid girls.” [61] 

  • Wednesday, May 20 Booth writes Lancey a letter saying there are 23 brothels on 1st and Jasper and he wants them shut down. [62]. 

  • However, when asked by Biggar about this, he says he only suspected 18, he didn’t know for sure, and he added the extra 5 to get a reaction from Lancey.  [63].

  • He also says that the Sunday he wanted the curtains down he didn’t suspect that many. Despite knowing of “a great many splendid girls” moments before. [64] [65]

Question 2: The Gates Ajar Policy

Finally, did Booth know about the gates ajar policy? 

 

Honestly, I don’t think there is any way he couldn’t have, saving for a severe memory loss (which, don’t forget, is an angle he tries for).

Splashing

On the second Friday Booth is interviewed (July 3) Biggar starts off by asking him about something Lancey said - that around the beginning of March Booth told Lancey “it was necessary to make a splash and some houses should be raided” [66]

 

To explain what is meant by this I want to quickly dive into that specific section from Lancey.

Lancey, Booth, and policy

When he was interviewed on June 23, Lancey said he was confused why Booth had asked for houses to be raided after they had both been in their positions about a month. He then checked in with the Mayor, as he was wondering if Booth was aware of the policy of the administration. The Mayor said he would follow up with Booth. [67] Lancey then said that when he talked with Booth he asked him directly if he wanted to go against administration policy. Booth said it looked like they were not “cleaning up the city” [68] and Lancey asked him if he was “working with the Temperance and Moral Reform” [69] as they were the only ones Lancey knew of that were complaining about the brothels. [70] At this point, Lancey said that Booth backed off and said they should continue with the administration policy of leaving the brothels alone unless there was a complaint [71] The splash in question would have been the raiding of several brothels.

No memory of "splash"

So coming back to Booth - Biggar asks him about Lancey’s statement and Booth says “I do not remember ever using the word splash.” [72]

 

Booth continues by saying it seemed as if there was not “enough action going on” and that he “was trying to get [Lancey] to do better than he as doing” [73]

He didn't know or remember the policy

Biggar asks him about his knowledge of the gates ajar policy and Booth spends a good paragraph doing his best to say that if a policy of that nature had existed he had not known about and that if he had ever been told about it he forgot it. [74]

​

And of course, we cannot forget his lace curtain/brothel knowledge logic. After he says he didn't know/suspect houses on the 18th but did on the 20th Biggar grills him hard about this.

Enacted the policy he didn't know

​​

After many more questions Biggar gets him to admit that he did indeed have a conversation with Lancey, early on in his appointment, that they would leave the houses alone where one or two women were working. [75] Basically Booth reaches a point where he has to reluctantly admit that or risk openly perjuring himself as Biggar reminds him of a letter he sent Lancey when they both started. [76] 

 

I have not been able to find the letter (yet) but from what I gather, from Booth’s interviews and Lancey’s interviews, towards the beginning of February 1914, Booth gave written instructions to Lancey to leave the brothels alone where women were in charge (instead of a man) and there were only a couple of women working. [77] [78].

Summary of Questions 2 & 3

Did Booth know about brothels? This is one of the few things in this investigation I feel confident saying yes he did.

 

Did he know how many? That I do not know but that is because I suspect very few people actually did know the true number and that the number kept shifting.

 

Did Booth know about the gates ajar policy? Almost certainly.

 

At the beginning of February 1914 he sent Lancey instructions that appear to have said to leave the brothels alone if only one or two women were working in them and they were run by a woman. [79] [80]

 

Around the beginning of March, Booth tells Lancey to close up the brothels. According to Lancey, he asks Booth if he is aware of the gates ajar policy of the city administration.Booth counters that it doesn’t look like they are cleaning up the city and Lancey checks in with the Mayor, who says he will talk with Booth. Booth then drops the request. [81]

 

Booth admits to this conversation but denies having heard of the policy or if he did hear of it, he forgot it. [82]

 

I put the credibility of this in the same category as Booth’s argument that he didn’t know of the brothels but suspected some. But he only suspected them after he gave his orders for the lace curtains to come down.

Final Notes

I also want to take a moment to point out that while Booth is trying to preserve himself, the women who had been doing sex work had been dealing with an administration that was mostly leaving them alone for a few months and letting them work.

 

But as the investigation came to a head, many of them fled the city.[83] I cannot imagine the stress and frustration in trying to survive in this environment, especially when women had so few options for ways to make an independent living.

 

This is something I will be spending more time looking into later so I cannot speak in great detail about at the moment, but I do not want that perspective to be forgotten.

References:

​

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

  2. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 2, part III, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1203

  3. Henderson Directories, Henderson’s Edmonton City Directory (1914), (Winnipeg: Henderson Directories, 1914) pg. 1802, accessed through Internet Archive 

  4. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 3, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1699

  5. Henderson Directories, Henderson’s Edmonton City Directory (1914), (Winnipeg: Henderson Directories, 1914) pg. 576, accessed through Internet Archive 

  6. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 450

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

  8. Ibid.

  9. Ibid.

  10. Henderson Directories, Henderson’s Edmonton City Directory (1914), (Winnipeg: Henderson Directories, 1914) pg. 1153, accessed through Internet Archive 

  11. Henderson Directories, Henderson’s Edmonton City Directory (1914), (Winnipeg: Henderson Directories, 1914) pg. 234, accessed through Internet Archive 

  12. 1913 Fire Insurance Plan, Volume 1, Sheet 13, 1913, accessed April 18, 2025, https://cityarchives.edmonton.ca/1913-fire-insurance-plan-volume-1-sheet-13 

  13. Henderson Directories, Henderson’s Edmonton City Directory (1914), (Winnipeg: Henderson Directories, 1914) pg. 220, accessed through Internet Archive 

  14. 1913 Fire Insurance Plan, Volume 1, Sheet 14, 1913, accessed April 18, 2025, https://cityarchives.edmonton.ca/1913-fire-insurance-plan-volume-1-sheet-14 

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

  16. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 3, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1695

  17. “Thiel Detective Service Company”, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, April 18, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiel_Detective_Service_Company 

  18. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 3, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1695

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

  20. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 3, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1696

  21. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 425

  22. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 3, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1696

  23. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 426

  24. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 425

  25. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 426

  26. Ibid.

  27. Ibid.

  28. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 427

  29. Ibid.

  30. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 429

  31. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 427

  32. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 430

  33. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 431

  34. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 432

  35. Ibid.

  36. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 430

  37. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 3, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1699

  38. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 3, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1697

  39. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 3, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1699

  40. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 2, part III, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1202

  41. Ibid.

  42. Ibid.

  43. Ibid.

  44. Ibid.

  45. Ibid.

  46. Henderson Directories, Henderson’s Edmonton City Directory (1914), (Winnipeg: Henderson Directories, 1914) pg. 411, accessed through Internet Archive 

  47. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 2, part III, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1203

  48. Ibid.

  49. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 2, part III, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1204

  50. Ibid.

  51. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 2, part III, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1205

  52. Ibid.

  53. Ibid.

  54. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 2, part III, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1206

  55. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 2, part III, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1202

  56. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 425

  57. Ibid.

  58. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 3, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1696

  59. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 3, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1699

  60. Ibid.

  61. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 2, part III, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1202

  62. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 2, part III, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1204

  63. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 2, part III, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1206

  64. Ibid.

  65. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 2, part III, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1202

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

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

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

  69. Ibid.

  70. Ibid.

  71. Ibid.

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

  73. Ibid.

  74. Ibid.

  75. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 2, part III, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1209

  76. Ibid.

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

  78. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 2, part III, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1209

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

  80. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 2, part III, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1209

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

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

  83. “City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 3, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1817

© 2025 Toby Grant

 Powered and secured by Wix

bottom of page