William J. McNamara

William J. McNamara, the 10 months mayor

On December 8, 1913, William J. McNamara was elected as mayor of Edmonton. [1] He took office January 1, 1914 and by October 26 of that same year he and another alderman were declared to have been disqualified from holding office since the previous April [2]. And it wasn’t even because of the June investigation!

He was part of a club that was drilling oil in Viking, AB and the club had a contract with the city, which created an illegal conflict of interest. [3]

I feel comfortable saying that McNamara’s tenure as mayor was anything but boring. I’ve heard, from multiple sources, that at one point he and Joe Clarke got into a fight during a council meeting and Clarke punched him in the nose. I am still working on confirming this.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

The Police Investigation

McNamara was interviewed only once, Saturday, June 13. At the start of the day, Biggar (the lawyer doing the examining) says the mayor has plans to be away for a bit and as such, he is requesting that McNamara be interviewed that day. [4]

Very considerate of him.

The primary focus of McNamara’s interview is the firing of police chief Silas Carpenter and the hiring of his replacement, Alfred C Lancey. In fact, Biggar doesn’t ask him at all about the gates ajar policy.

What Biggar aims to find out is:

When and why did McNamara decide he was going to fire Carpenter?
When and why did McNamara decide he was going to hire Lancey?
When did McNamara tell Lancey he was going to have the position?

The overarching question being - did he have grounds to fire Carpenter or was this just a favour to Lancey for helping him politically?

Naturally, McNamara denies it being about politics.

The firing of Carpenter

To start off, Biggar asks him when he first started planning the change in management. McNamara says he thinks he had decided before the election to “see to a change in the Police Force” if elected.[5]

Biggar asks him why this was so - what information did he have that was prompting him to plan for such a change? McNamara answers that he had “only the information of any citizen through what he could see himself…” and that there had been stories that led him to the conclusion that the police force was in need of change.[6]

In terms of specifics, he says he has seen a lot of drunkenness, women doing sex work, men living off the avails of sex work, and that there had been multiple escapes from the jail and multiple officers fired for being drunk on the job. [7]

2 to 3 weeks into his term (mid January 1914) he says there was an assault on a woman in the jail and two more prisoners had escaped. This pushed him to proceed with firing Carpenter and by February 3, Carpenter was out of a job. [8] [9]

Booth's reports

Biggar then asks McNamara for details on this assault - McNamara says Manville Booth, the man overseeing the police, probably has all that information as he was the one who did an investigation into it. [10]

According to McNamara, Booth “provided several reports in writing” to the City Council on the conditions of the police force but also Booth didn’t end up finishing his final report. [11]

Regardless of that, McNamara says he is satisfied with how things were handled though they were not able to prove “a number of things that were known to be true” [12] which I find absolutely fascinating as a claim.

Now, if you’ve read Booth’s section you might be thinking to yourself, this sounds oddly familiar. If you haven’t, that is absolutely fine - you can find it here and I’ll provide a very quick overview below.

Quick Overview

The short version is that Booth also claimed he made a bunch of reports but the only actual reports anyone can find, Biggar and myself included, are two reports from after Carpenter is fired - one from February 17 another from May 26.[13][14]

He presented the February 17th report to City Council - the report detailed multiple problems with the behaviour of police force members.[15]

The May 26th report was the result of findings from external detectives that Booth hired to check out the city. This report said they did not find any significant issues. However the report that was presented was written by Booth about the final report from the detectives - the actual report from the detectives had gone missing.[16][17]

150 pages of evidence

Biggar tells McNamara that Booth gave him 150 pages of evidence but that it doesn’t contain these reports - is McNamara absolutely sure that Booth provided more than one written report to Council?

McNamara dithers. He’s sure that Booth “made more than one progress report.” But now he’s unsure about any other formal reports - McNamara was away in Jamaica from March 10- April 10, maybe Booth provided one then. [18]

Grounds to fire Carpenter

Biggar notes that these investigations and subsequent reports happened after Carpenter had been fired. At this point, McNamara admits:

“I have no written report from anybody to give you to warrant me in dismissing the Chief. I made up my mind the force was in bad shape; he was the head of it and I took the responsibility on my own shoulders of dismissing him and putting a man there who I thought would bring order about.” [20]

Translation - I don’t actually have any grounds I can prove but I wanted to get rid of him so I did.

Protests against firing Carpenter

Firing Carpenter was not a quiet, behind closed doors affair. I am unsure exactly how and when the public learned that McNamara was considering this but it was public knowledge enough by the end of January to garner complaints.

On January 27th, 1914, the President of the Temperance and Moral Reform League, T.K. Miller, presented a petition to City Council, against any action to fire Carpenter. A professor J.E. Bland also made an appearance and spoke in the same vein.

The meeting minutes note that right after this “Ald. Clarke took exception to certain personal remarks made by Ald. Calder against him.” Two more aldermen then “rose to a point of order.” and eventually McNamara ruled Calder out of order. [20]

The morning edition of the January 28 Bulletin is less delicate in its description of the fray.

“RIOTOUS LANGUAGE AND WILD SCENES AT COUNCIL MEETING” reads the front page headline.

The start of the article has a quote from McNamara, which is not noted in the meeting minutes.

“As to the present of state of the police department - it is rotten, absolutely rotten. If necessary I shall act before Mr. Booth takes his place. I shall clean up the police department if I have to fire every man on it.”

The article does not hesitate to describe the colourful scene, and honestly, it is worth a read.

Alderman Clarke jumps up from his seat repeatedly to yell that Mr. Miller is out of order. The mayor, other aldermen, and many of the “two to three hundred citizens” in attendance repeatedly yell back at him to sit down.

The Bulletin writer describes every member of the council as having “lost their respective heads” for a few minutes. Alderman Clarke and Alderman Calder eventually threaten physical violence to each other. [21]

The Bulletin is amused that as a result of the chaos, council never actually got back to addressing the petition. There is no comment on the petition in the meeting minutes beyond the initial introduction.[22][23]

Summary

McNamara admits that he does not have clear proof of his grounds for firing Carpenter and that he had indeed been planning to fire Carpenter before he was elected.

He claims that he saw a number of examples of vice throughout the city and that he had heard stories about disorderly conduct within the police force.

He is sure Booth’s reports support his claims. But there are only two reports to be found and both occurred after Carpenter had been fired.

And while he is sure the stories he has heard about the police force are true, neither he or Booth are able to prove them.

Though McNamara claims that the stories of vice are well known throughout the city, the feeling is clearly not unanimous that firing Carpenter is the solution.

Stay tuned for part 2 where we’ll review how Lancey ended up playing into this.

References

“W. J. M’Namara Elected by 236 Majority; J.A. Clarke is Leader of the Aldermen”, The Edmonton Bulletin, (Edmonton, AB), December 9, 1913
“Mayor McNamara and Ald. East Disqualified from Holding Office”, The Edmonton Bulletin, (Edmonton, AB) October 27, 1914
Ibid.
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 91
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 92
Ibid.
Ibid.
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 95
“New Commissioners Dismiss Chief of Police Carpenter and Appoint Ex-Chief of Police Lancey to Post”, The Edmonton Bulletin,(Edmonton, AB) February 3, 1914
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 96
Ibid.
Ibid.
Manville S. Booth, “Report #2 of Commissioner of Safety and Health”, (report, Edmonton, AB, 1914
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 417
Manville S. Booth, “Report #2 of Commissioner of Safety and Health”, (report, Edmonton, AB, 1914)
Manville S. Booth, “Safety and Health No. 336”, (report, Edmonton, AB, 1914)
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 426
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 97
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 98
City Council, “Meeting no. 7”, (meeting minutes, January 27, 1914)
“Riotous Language And Wild Scenes At Council Meetings”, The Edmonton Bulletin,(Edmonton, AB) January 28, 1914
Ibid.
City Council, “Meeting no. 7”, (meeting minutes, January 27, 1914)

Lancey gets a job

On February 4, 1914 the Edmonton Bulletin announced that the previous Chief of Police, Silas Carpenter, had been replaced with Alfred C. Lancey, who had been Chief of Police two times before. [1] The swap was led by newly elected Mayor William J. McNamara and the Commissioner of Safety and Health., Manville Booth.

On Saturday, June 13, when Mayor William J. McNamara is interviewed, Biggar tries to get a clear understanding of exactly how everything transpired that led up to Lancey taking on the position. The papers suggested that the change in management was part of McNamara’s campaign platform - McNamara however, does not have any recollection of saying this. [2]

He also adds that he didn’t know he was going to be elected so there would not have been any point in making any promises. [3]

Biggar reminds him that candidates do make promises before they are elected.

McNamara says he is “..almost sure, I certainly don’t remember any occasion which I ever breathed a word to a soul about any such contemplated change.” [4]

Hiring Lancey

McNamara was elected December 8, 1913 and says he first spoke with Lancey about him taking the job in early December 1913, after the election.

He and Lancey met at McNamara’s office at Tegler Block (10189 101St- now the city centre mall) [5] in early December. While meeting, Lancey may have asked him (McNamara isn’t quite sure) if there was going to be a change in police management. And if so, he said he was interested in the job.[6]

But how did this meeting come to be in the first place? McNamara skips over that question and says only that Chief Lancey must have “surmised I had a change in mind and he applied for the position.” [7]

Biggar continues to press him. How exactly did Lancey know, in early December, that this position would soon be vacant? What brought him to speak with McNamara about it, if he hadn’t been told beforehand?

McNamara has no idea except that it was a well-known fact that the police force was in need of a change.

Again, he says Lancey may have asked him at the meeting if he was contemplating a change and McNamara would have told him yes. Which led Lancey to say he would be interested in the job. [8]

No, he didn’t talk with Lancey before about the job. This was the first time. Of that, McNamara is much more confident. [9]

Biggar and McNamara go back and forth on this question for a bit. McNamara continues to plead a faulty memory but insists he is sure that he did not speak with Lancey about the job until after the election.

Biggar eventually wonders if someone else communicated McNamara’s desire for a change without his knowledge - McNamara doesn’t think so, at least before the election, but again, he doesn’t remember. [10]

Sharing plans

The one thing McNamara does seem sure about regarding the timeline of his plan, at least before the election, was that he didn’t say anything about it to anyone. Probably.

He does say he may have written a letter to Lancey on the subject. And yes, if he had written a letter there would be a copy of it in his files. But he isn’t sure. [11]

Biggar asks him, if he’d had this plan for dismissing Carpenter, what was his replacement plan? Had he been planning to leave the police force without a head? [12]

It is then that McNamara admits that yes, he had made plans with Lancey for him to take the position, prior to having dismissed Carpenter, but not before the election.

Biggar circles back to the question of when - since he did indeed have this plan in place, when did he talk with Lancey about it? [13]

Eventually, McNamara gets frustrated and says that while “it might appear as quite a coincidence” that Lancey would come into town, help McNamara with his campaign, and then get the Chief of Police position, it is indeed only a coincidence. [14]

Oh yes, Lancey worked for McNamara during his campaign. We’ll look into that later.

Biggar isn't buying

Unsurprisingly, Biggar isn’t totally convinced that Lancey just happened to ask about the position after the election, purely because he, Lancey, also thought the police force was “rotten”. Especially since McNamara says the state of the police force wasn’t part of his campaign. [15]

A quick reminder - the City Council meeting where McNamara called the police “rotten” didn’t happen until January 27, 1914, nearly two months after the election. [16] This doesn’t exclude the possibility that Lancey knew through other means how McNamara felt about the police - it is just that as best as I can find so far, this very open criticism didn’t happen until after he had taken office.

McNamara does agree that he made up his mind that there was going to be a change, if he was elected. But it is important that Biggar understand that he hadn’t decided there was going to be an immediate change. [17]

Because he didn’t know he was going to be elected, he hadn’t any serious intention. He did have it in mind that once elected, if he could bring it about, he would make a change of police chief first thing. [18]

According to McNamara, this doesn’t count as having had the intention because he didn’t know he was going to be elected. [19]

If you’re looking for more interesting logical leaps I recommend reading Booth’s account of what he knew regarding the brothels in the city.

Summary

McNamara says the change in police management was not part of his election campaign but he thought there were issues with the police department and that this viewpoint was common in the city.

As well, he felt that it was known he shared this viewpoint and this was why Lancey came to him, after the election, to ask if he planned to make a change. McNamara says this conversation took place in early December and Lancey told him then he would be interested in the position of police chief.

McNamara says he had considered a change in management but he hadn’t considered it seriously before the election, because he didn’t know he was going to be elected.

He did, however, admit he did tell Lancey that he could have the position before Carpenter had been dismissed. He does insist this was at their December meeting, after he had been elected.

And he insists that no, he does not know why Lancey knew to come to him and ask about the position. He must have just known they shared the same viewpoint.

References:

“New Commissioners Dismiss Chief of Police Carpenter and Appoint Ex-Chief of Police Lancey to Post”, The Edmonton Bulletin, (Esmonton, AB), February 4, 1914
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 94
Ibid.
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 95
Henderson Directories, Henderson’s Edmonton City Directory (1914), (Winnipeg: Henderson Directories, 1914) pg. 411, accessed through Internet Archive
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 102
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 101
Ibid.
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 102
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 105
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 100
Ibid.
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 101
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 105
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 103
“Riotous Language And Wild Scenes At Council Meetings”, The Edmonton Bulletin,(Edmonton, AB) January 28, 1914
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 104
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 105
Ibid.

Lancey helping the campaign

Lancey was homesteading in 1913; according to the Provincial Alberta Archives the way homesteading worked was:

An individual was “given” a piece land
They had to clear (remove the trees) at least 10 acres
They had to build a “habitable dwelling and farm buildings”
They had to “undertake some cultivation”
And they had to live on the land for at least 6 months each year over 3 years

If they completed these requirements they could acquire the title for the land.[1]

Something to remember about this land being “given” - this was all Indigenous territory.

Lancey had a homestead about 30-40 (48-64km) miles out of the city. At this time, I do not know exactly where, or in what direction from the city.

McNamara shares that Lancey did provide a significant amount of help during his mayoral campaign. McNamara doesn’t say exactly what he did, only that Lancey came into town and helped. [2]

Lancey wasn’t only coming into town to help him - he also owned the St. Regis Hotel (301 Namayo, now 10201 97St. It is a pharmacy now) [3] and would come in to work there.

The St.Regis, in Lancey’s stead, was being managed by Ernest Seymour, another former Edmonton City cop. In November 1913, Seymour came to McNamara and told him that Lancey would be interested in coming to town to help with the campaign. McNamara gladly accepted the offer. [4]

When Lancey met with McNamara in December 1913, and asked him about the Chief of Police position, one of the officers he wanted to bring back was Detective Seymour. [5] Lancey said he was a “good clean cut boy and had always made a first class detective” [6].

McNamara says he told him, at that meeting, that he wasn’t going to get involved in the hiring of other police staff at all - that would be between Lancey and Commissioner Booth. [7]

(Fun fact: Even though McNamara told Lancey that it would be between him and Booth, as of December 1913, Booth had yet to be voted on as Commissioner. That wouldn’t happen until January 10, 1914 [8])

This removal from the responsibility of police staff becomes especially important for McNamara. Lancey does a fair bit of a staff shuffle in February-March 1914 and McNamara conveniently claims he is completely removed from this and can’t speak to why or why not men were fired or hired. [9]

Later in his interview, McNamara is asked if his personal relationship with Seymour might be why Lancey mentioned him when they spoke in December. McNamara doubts this - he says he knew Seymour, but only sort of; they had gone to school together in Calgary about 23 years ago and McNamara hadn’t really seen him since. [10]

Also he doesn’t think that Lancey knows that the two of them know each other. [11]

He seems to have forgotten that earlier he said Seymour had acted as the messenger between the two. [pg. 107]

Seymour’s actions get him fired on June 24 [12] but his behaviour is already in question by June 13th when McNamara is interviewed. [13]

I will go into detail about Seymour at another date.

For now, let’s move to the Firing of Lancey.

The firing of Lancey

By May 10th, 1914, only 3 months after Lancey had taken on the position, Commissioner Booth went to McNamara with concerns. He felt that the Chief of Police was not being truthful regarding his knowledge of the brothels running in the city. McNamara tells Booth to fire him - Booth says he wants to wait a little longer to do so and take that time to gather more evidence. [14]

Before Booth can do this, the First Street Gambling Raid happens (well, sort of happens).

This raid was the final impetus that pushed City Council into agreeing to the investigation. It was complex with a lot of moving parts but I’ll use McNamara’s description of it as an overview for now.

The First Street Gambling Raid

The raid happened over the May long weekend, May 15-18, 1914 [15]. Leading up to that weekend McNamara had been told by a friend (he would prefer not to disclose whom) that there was gambling happening at “the Eureka Rooms”, next door to the Lewis Brother’s Cafe. [16].

The friend was surprised McNamara hadn’t heard about it - there were probably 500 men over there. [17]

Friday, May 15

On Friday, May 15, McNamara went to check it out. He stood in front of the building and watched men go in and out. He received reports from 1 to 2, maybe 3, people that there was a faro table, crap game, blackjack, and roulette inside. He thinks 500 in number was exaggerated but it was between 250 -500 people. [18].

He tried to call Booth that evening, to let him know what was going on, but couldn’t get him on the phone.

Saturday, May 16 - morning

McNamara called again the next day and did succeed in getting Booth. He asked him if he’d known about the gambling. Booth said he had only just heard of it recently. McNamara asked him if he knew how long it had been going on - Booth said he didn’t.

McNamara informed him it had been since the previous Tuesday (May 12).

Booth then said that the Chief didn’t know anything about the gambling.

Didn’t Booth think that was most unusual?

Yes he did.

McNamara ordered that the place be raided that night, at 11:30PM, as that would be when the largest number of people would be there. Booth agreed and said he would give the order as late in the day as possible, to catch people by surprise. He was worried someone on the force might spill the beans. [19]

Saturday, May 16 - evening

That night, McNamara sent a friend in to assess the situation and see what was going on. He told him he could gamble but to be aware that the raid was going to happen. For himself, McNamara waited outside and watched.

He waited - 11:30 came and went and nothing happened. He waited some more. 11:45, 12:00, 12:15. He gave up at 12:15 and at that time, nothing had happened. [20]

He was “very much disappointed” but he went home. [21]

Sunday, May 17

The next day he learned the raid had indeed happened. But it had happened between 1:30-2 AM, two hours later than he had ordered. [22]

Around noon that Sunday he met up with the man he had sent in. He does not share the man’s name on the stand, but says he will tell Biggar and the judge in private who it was, as they wish to question him. [23]

From this friend he learned that:

The raid was a very mild raid.
The gambling paraphernalia was left at the site rather than seized and taken to the police station.

He later learned that the men had started gambling again Sunday evening and continued through Monday. The paraphernalia, such as the roulette wheel, was able to get out of town. [24]

Monday, May 18

On Monday he discovered that no prosecution of the men could really happen, and that the police had not found out who was in charge of running the gambling rooms. The men hadn’t been arrested - they had only been asked to provide names.

Which they did, but the names were ones such as “John Smith or Jones” or names of race horses. [25]

Wednesday, May 20

On Wednesday the 20th, McNamara told Booth he should dismiss Chief Lancey. Lancey ended up resigning instead.

When exactly Lancey resigned is a bit of a mystery.

Booth's take

In his interview, Booth initially claims that he asked for Lancey’s resignation Tuesday, May 19th. [26] However, when questioned further, and presented with evidence, he admits he may have actually asked on Friday or Saturday, May 22 or 23rd.

Biggar points out that Lancey’s resignation is dated May 21st (the Thursday). Booth is forced to admit that for some reason, the resignation was backdated by two days. [27]. Why it was backdated is left unclear.

Summary

I don’t think we’ll ever know what exactly transpired that led to Lancey getting the job as Chief of Police. I don’t believe that Lancey just happened to ask McNamara about it in December 1913 but I do not know beyond the fact that they spoke in early December and the next year, Lancey got the job.

McNamara is careful to avoid saying anything that will make it sound like, officially, he did promise Lancey the job.

As for the gambling raid - it threw into light several issues with the police force. Why exactly it happened the way it did is reviewed in further detail with the officers involved. I will say though, no one straight up admits to anything.

There is a repeated theme amongst the senior officers involved of faulty memories.

References

Provincial Archives of Alberta, About Homestead Records, Edmonton, AB: Alberta Genealogical Society, accessed May 16, 2025
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 106
Henderson Directories, Henderson’s Edmonton City Directory (1914), (Winnipeg: Henderson Directories, 1914) pg. 236, accessed through Internet Archive
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 107
Ibid.
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 108
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 109
“Special Committee” (Rg 8.15, #15, Meeting no. 1), January 10, 1914
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 135
Ibid.
Ibid.
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 3, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 1622
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 135
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 126
“Spectacular Raid on First St. Gambling Resort”, The Edmonton Bulletin, (Edmonton, AB), May 18, 1914
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 129
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 130
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 131
Ibid.
Ibid.
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 132
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part I, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 133
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 436
“City of Edmonton Civic Investigation” (Rg 8.18,Vol 1, part II, Edmonton, AB 1914) pg. 438