{"id":8584,"date":"2021-04-22T07:25:52","date_gmt":"2021-04-22T11:25:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/alanskeoch.ca\/?p=8584"},"modified":"2021-04-22T07:28:39","modified_gmt":"2021-04-22T11:28:39","slug":"episode-320-stonehooking-was-a-brutal-profession","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/alanskeoch.ca\/?p=8584","title":{"rendered":"EPISODE 320 STONEHOOKING WAS A BRUTAL PROFESSION"},"content":{"rendered":"
EPISODE  320    STONEHOOKING WAS A BRUTAL PROFESSION<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n
alan skeoch<\/font><\/div>\n
april 2021<\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n
\"\"heritagemississauga.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Port-Credit-Harbour-Scene-Stonehooker-in-harbour-1908-Harold-Hare-Image-300×204.jpg<\/a> 300w, heritagemississauga.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Port-Credit-Harbour-Scene-Stonehooker-in-harbour-1908-Harold-Hare-Image-768×523.jpg<\/a> 768w” sizes=”(max-width: 917px) 100vw, 917px” apple-inline=”yes” id=”55A3C3F0-5013-4CF8-AC66-CE82DC863BC7″ src=”https:\/\/alanskeoch.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Port-Credit-Harbour-Scene-Stonehooker-in-harbour-1908-Harold-Hare-Image.jpeg”><\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n
\"\"heritagemississauga.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Unknown-People-Stonehookers-of-Port-Credit-300×182.jpg<\/a> 300w” sizes=”(max-width: 723px) 100vw, 723px” apple-inline=”yes” id=”A89B2CCD-4CB9-4A03-81A7-3DF23D292D45″ src=”https:\/\/alanskeoch.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Unknown-People-Stonehookers-of-Port-Credit-1.jpeg”><\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n
Stonehooking was a brutal profession.   Today, now that the stonehookers are gone<\/font><\/div>\n
and their ships are rotting hulks at the bottom of Lake Ontario or ground into sawdust or<\/font><\/div>\n
charcoal by the passage of time and neglect, there is a tendency to romanticize what<\/font><\/div>\n
was near the  bottom of occupations Canadians  chose in the 19th and early 20th century.<\/font><\/div>\n
Just imagine spending your work day wading in water lifting slabs of stone with crowbar<\/font><\/div>\n
and a hooked rake\u2026piling the stone on a small flat bottomed scow\u2026transferring tons<\/font><\/div>\n
of stone to a schooner\u2026sailing to Toronto three times a week with 9 to 18 tons of stone<\/font><\/div>\n
\u2026piling the stone on a rotting pier with raw sewage bubbling up\u2026then getting $10 to $15<\/font><\/div>\n
\u2026and  sailing back to Port Credit with a return load of horse manure.  Toronto was a city<\/font><\/div>\n
with thousands of horses on the streets in 1900.  <\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n
PORT CREDIT HARBOUR AROUND 1899-1905<\/font><\/div>\n
(SOURCE Schooner Days 112, Nov. 4, 1933, Port Credit\u2019 Stonehookers)<\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n
WHAT DID MOST STONEHOOKERS LOOK LIKE?<\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n
\n
The scow model was used all over the Great Lakes, sometimes in vessels of considerable size, but Port Credit scows were a peculiar variant, and the best of them were so designed that they could carry their whole load on deck. This effected a great saving in handling of cargo.<\/font><\/div>\n
One of the best examples of such a model was the scow Coronet, designed and built by Capt. John Miller, for many years lighthouse keeper at Port Credit. She was 53 feet long and 17 feet beam and four feet deep in the hold; drew 18 inches of water light, with her centerboard up; carried thirty tons of stone on deck, with nothing in the hold but stone-chips for ballast. She sailed and sailed well in this trim, although the load brought her deck within eight inches of the water amidships. She was about three feet higher at each end. Her rig was large, the mainboom projecting outboard for 17 feet, half its length. Her topmasts were long, over thirty feet, and her lower masts comparatively short, so that when she clewed up her topsails it was equivalent to reefing ordinary lower sails. She sank off Port Credit in 1899, when owned by a Bronte <\/font><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n
At the other extreme was the smaller schooner, Ann Brown, built in Toronto about 1836 and owned in Port Credit for a half century by Abram Block, senior, and, in turn, Abram Block, junior, Justice of the Peace, who died this summer in his 83rd year. The Ann Brown was not a scow nor a centreboarder. She was a surviving example of the old “standing keel.” She was 36 feet long and 11 feet beam and 6 feet deep in the hold. She drew 6 feet of water when loaded, and carried slightly over twenty tons of stone, most of it in the hold. Tiny as she was she had made voyages as far east as Kingston as as far west as Manitoulin Island, for she was built for the fur-trade with the Indians of the Georgian Bay. She was sailed for many years by Thomas Block, a brother of Abram Block, J.P., and survived until 1904. In her early days she had a square topsail and topgallantsail, although the yards for these sails were so short they could be used for pike-poles. <\/font><\/span><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n
HOW DID A STONEHOOKER GET ITS LOAD OF STONE?<\/span><\/font><\/div>\n

<\/span><\/font><\/div>\n
\n
The stonehooker usually anchored on the lake shore and collected a cargo by sending in a small flat scow, into which loads of stones were gathered from the beach itself or from the bottom, long rakes, with prong-like forks being used for the purpose. Some have thought that these hook-like rakes gave the name to the trade.<\/font><\/div>\n
\n
Stonehooking was very wet work, the men sometimes wading the shore waist-deep in water, quarrying the stone loose with crowbars, and lifting it on to the small scow, which was usually decked over and water-tight as a wooden bottle.<\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n
SMALL FLAT BOTTOMED  SCOWS \u2014 AND PARENT LARGER SCHOONERS AND SCOWS TO CARRY 9  TONS OF STONE<\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n
\"\"heritagemississauga.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Sailors-Port-Credit-Harbour-with-stonehooking-scow-undated-300×234.jpg<\/a> 300w” sizes=”(max-width: 641px) 100vw, 641px” apple-inline=”yes” id=”03FF66DA-2E12-4EA4-87C4-8387A4160897″ src=”https:\/\/alanskeoch.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Sailors-Port-Credit-Harbour-with-stonehooking-scow-undated.jpeg”><\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n
When the scow was loaded it was poled or sculled out to the parent stonehooker, and its cargo transferred to her deck and hold. These small scows could carry about a third of a toise, or three tons deadweight. It took from ten to forty scowloads to give the stonehooker her full cargo. Gravel was loaded in the same way, except that it was shoveled from the beach to the deck of the scow, and not gathered with rakes.<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n
The first vessels engaged in the trade were the small coasters, some scows and some schooner-built, which had been in the grain, lumber and cordwood trade while this was profitable for small vessels. It was soon found that the scows were particularly well fitted for carrying stone, and the specialized scow model resulted. <\/font><\/span><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n
WHY  WAS  SO MUCH STONE NEEDED?<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n
Stonehooking flourished through the decades while great harbors were being constructed on Lake Ontario, and stone was needed to fill the timber cribs; and while cities were growing and needed building stone for walls, flat stones for sidewalks, cobble stones for pavements, and crushed stone for macadamized roadways<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n
WHY WERE STONEHOOKERS SO  SECRETIVE ABOUT THEIR TRADE?<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n
\"\"heritagemississauga.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Port-Credit-Harbour-Stonehooker-Lillian-and-Harbour-Dredge-c1900-300×215.jpg<\/a> 300w, heritagemississauga.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Port-Credit-Harbour-Stonehooker-Lillian-and-Harbour-Dredge-c1900-768×550.jpg<\/a> 768w” sizes=”(max-width: 866px) 100vw, 866px” apple-inline=”yes” id=”0119E144-75E4-407C-870C-9869727AB6B1″ src=”https:\/\/alanskeoch.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Port-Credit-Harbour-Stonehooker-Lillian-and-Harbour-Dredge-c1900-1.jpeg”><\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n
\n
It cannot be said that all stonehookers hailed from Port Credit, but all used that harbor, and many of them were owned there. Surprisingly few showed “of Port Credit” on their sterns; partly for the reason that the stonehookers were engaged in warfare with the lakeshore farmers, until the third or fourth generation. The farmers objected to the stone being carried from their beaches, over which they claimed riparian rights.<\/font><\/div>\n
\n
At one time what was called the “three-rod law” prevailed for the protection of beaches in Halton, Peel and York counties; stonehookers were not allowed to remove stone, sand or gravel from within three perches or 49 1\/2 feet, of the water’s edge.<\/font><\/div>\n
Conditions being such, stonehooker mariners had no great desire to display, for the convenience for prosecutors, the name of the port where they could be found. Many Port Credit stonehookers were registered in Toronto, and had “of Toronto” following their names on the sternboards. Others were “of Hamilton” or “of Oakville.” In some cases stonehookers actually built in Port Credit to appear on the marine registry as having been built in Toronto, where the registration was made.<\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n
HOW BIG WAS  A STONEHOOKERS CREW?<\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n
Stonehookers, even up to a hundred tons burden, were usually sailed by a crew of two; sometimes single-handed. Occasionally three or four went in vessel, especially in the early days, when wages were low. Profits were small then, for stone sold for $5 a toise, and three trips a week for a two-toise hooker, with her crew of two men, was considered very good work. On this account few steam vessels ever appeared in stonehooking; there were only three, the steam barge Chub of Bronte, the Gordon Jerry, a covered scow-brigantine from Port Dover, and the steam scow Maybird of Toronto<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n
HOW WAS THE STONE CARGO PRICED?<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n
As mentioned the stone  was sold at 5$ per \u2018noise\u2019 each of which weighed 9 tons.  Small stonehookers could carry two toise. Three trips a week for<\/font><\/span><\/div>\n
a two person crew.   $30 a week or $15 per man.  <\/font><\/span>Casual labourers might be taken to Toronto as well or hired where the ships were unloaded \u2026 75 cents a day.<\/font><\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n
WHAT WAS COST OF LIVING IN 1900 AND THEN 1913 –<\/span><\/font><\/div>\n

<\/span><\/font><\/div>\n
\n
\n