Police Chief McKinnon's Absence (Part 4) - January 1895

“The case of the missing Hamilton Police chief and his rumored rendezvous with two ladies at a Toronto hotel took a surprising turn on January 11, 1895.

The Police Commissioners had not decided on how the issue would play out. Should the chief be suspended until he could explain himself or should he even be terminated ?

The Police Commissioners, unexpectly received a disposition signed by a number of good-hearted Hamiltonians asking them to simply hush the whole matter up.

The Hamilton Herald immediately published an editorial condemning such an action:

“This is a tactic admission that the chief is guilty of the charges made against him so freely during the past day or two; and it is paying the Police Commisioners a poor compliment to suppose that they would be willing to lend themselves to any such questionable method of discharging an important, if painful, public duty.”

Hamilton Herald.   January 11, 1895

The Herald, again, suggested that if the charges against Chief McKinnon were true, he could no longer continue as chief:

“We say this with all pity and with all regret and without the faintest desire to injure a man who has proved himself to be in many respects an obliging and competent officer.

“But feelings of regret because of the unfortunate position in which he has placed himself, and regard for his family, must not be allowed to influence those who, however reluctantly, are called upon to pass judgement in a matter that is of public concern and must be disposed of with a single eye to the public welfare.”¹

The Herald denounced the idea that it would be acceptable to simply hush up the matter:

“To do so would be an outrageous, indefensible and, indeed, insane attempt to palliate immorality and public decency. Chief McKinnon’s usefulness would be gone. He would have the respect of no man, not even of the men who are paid by the citizens to obey his orders, and his authority would be derided.”¹

The Police Commissioners were strongly urged to conduct themselves responsibly :

“They must make a thorough investigation and find out to the satisfaction of themselves and the public whether the Chief McKinnon is guilty or innocent  of the misconduct with which he is publicly charged  

“No one will rejoice more at his acquittal or will do more to set him right in the eyes of the public than the Herald; and no reproach can be too bitter for those who have blackened an innocent man’s character and brought heartrending grief to members of his family.

“If, on the other hand, he is guilty, only one course can be followed. He must go.”¹

The lengthy Herald editorial ended with a stern rebuke of Mayor Stewart who had attempted to remove himself from the McKinnon matter, despite being one of the three Police Commissioners.

Even though Mayor Stewart, himself a former Hamilton Police chief, felt that he could not intervene because of hard feelings between himself and the chief, the Herald urged told him to put some concerns aside:

“Mayor Stewart was not elected to bandage his feeling in cotton wool, but to do his duty, and he cannot do his duty by shirking it.

“Whatever the consequences may be, he must remember that he is representing the citizens and do the thing he is called upon to do in a manly and straightforward fashion, however unpleasant it may be.”¹

A meeting of the Police Commissioners was held in the morning of January 12, 1895 with the McKinnon matter the only thing on the agenda.

The meeting was supposed to start at 11 a.m., but at that time, the three commissioners were in the mayor’s office, behind a closed door. When they came out, the meeting began with Lawyer J. W. Nesbitt who gave a certificate to the commissioners from Drs. Rennie and Griffin who gave their opinion that the chief should not leave his bed for at least two or three days.

Judge Muir declared that he would like to make a motion, which was :

“The police commissioners deeply regret hearing the charges of gross misconduct made against Chief McKinnon, and trust that he may, at an early day, be able to satisfy them that they are untrue.”²

² “Where Doctors Agree :Two of Them Certify That the Chief is Ill”

Hamilton Herald.   January 12, 1895.

Obviously, the closed door meeting had not produced a consensus as Commissioner Jelfs expressed his disapproval with the motion, and moved that it be replaced with the following :

“The police commissioners have heard with regret certain charges of misconduct against the chief constable, and require him to attend as soon as he is able to satisfy them that there is no truth to the charges”²

Mayor Stewart quickly seconded the motion, and it was passed.

Tommy Gould was in the news again concerning an encounter he had with a policeman the previous evening. Tommy was standing in front of the Star Theatre discussing the McKinnon affair and his estranged wife’s involvement. A beat policemen approached Gould and ordered him to cease his conversation about Chief McKinnon. This encounter commenced a heated war of words. Gould insisted on his right to speak about anything he damn well wanted, and the police constable eventually moved on.:

“Tommy says strong efforts are being made to all him off, so that he may cease taking action for divorce, naming Chief McKinnon as a co-respondent.” ²