Unremitting Efforts

• Author: C. Ian Kyer
• Pages: 139-162

139

seven

Unremitting Eforts

I 1940,  Aemilius Jarvis died, Colonel Frank Moss pub-

lished a pamphlet entitled The Jarvis Case.1 In it, he talked of

more than a decade of “unremitting ef‌forts” to “show that injus-

tice was actually done to Aemilius Jarvis.” Much to the chagrin of both

federal and Ontario provincial politicians of the day, Moss and the

other supporters of Jarvis were indeed unremitting in their ef‌forts.

As we have seen, those ef‌forts began even before the verdict in

the Pepall case, but after that verdict, they intensif‌ied considerably.

Within weeks of the Pepall acquittal, Jarvis and his supporters went

to work trying to use the evidence presented during the Pepall trial

and the fact of his acquittal to clear Jarvis’s name.

First, William Nickle was approached. He was, of course,

Ontario’s attorney general, but more importantly, he was respected

by all. His reputation for independence and integrity2 and the fact

that he had personally played a limited role in the Smith/Jarvis pros-

ecution suggested that he might be open to this new evidence. He was

seen to be above the political manoeuvring of Ferguson and Price. In

1919, before he joined Ferguson’s Ontario Conservatives, Nickle was

the f‌irst choice of the UFO to be attorney general in their UFO-Labour

coalition government.3

The OnTariO BOnd Scandal Of 1924 re-examined

140

Nickle was asked for a meeting to present the new evidence from

the Pepall trial and to discuss the return of the f‌ine paid by Jarvis.4

Initially, Nickle agreed to meet Jarvis and some business leaders who

supported him on December 30. But when Premier Ferguson learned

of the scheduled meeting through an article in the Toronto Star, he

immediately had Nickle issue a retraction. The press was called to

Nickle’s oce, where the attorney general, with Ferguson by his side,

explained that Jarvis’s solicitors had asked for such a meeting, but

he had refused. When the Star reporter said that he had been told

by several prominent businesspeople that Nickle had agreed to the

meeting and that they could attend, Nickle declined further comment,

saying that the matter was one for the courts. At this point, Ferguson

is reported to have taken Nickle aside and advised him to ignore “the

d ____ Star.” 5 Ferguson then brought the press brief‌ing to a close.

Ferguson undoubtedly recognized that a great deal hinged on

keeping the guilty verdict in place. To have had the verdict over-

thrown by the Court of Appeal or through a new trial would have

meant not only considerable political embarrassment but also the

return of the $140,000 restitution payment as well as the $60,000 f‌ine.

The money was clearly important to Ferguson and his government.

When the Court of Appeal reduced the f‌ine, Ferguson and Nickle both

complained publicly. They had accepted the restitution payment, and

then when Jarvis paid the reduced f‌ine, they had promptly seized the

money even though the law was clear that it should have been given

to the City of Toronto to cover the costs of maintaining the courts.

And then when the city asked for the money to which it was entitled,

Ferguson’s government refused.

Nickle could not have been happy with Ferguson after that late

December press conference in 1925, and not long afterward he had a

falling-out with the premier over the proposed repeal of the Ontario

Temperance Act.6 Nickle, a prohibitionist, resigned. As with the trial,

Nickle would play a very limited role in the post-trial process. Billy

Price, the architect of the Smith/Jarvis prosecution, became the attor-

ney general who would oversee its review.

Despite this initial rebuf‌f, or perhaps because of it, a large and

influential group rallied round Jarvis. Initially, leadership was