1895 - Chief McKinnon Faces the Music

 

 

“Chief McKinnon, pale and thin, and looking like a man who had come through a severe illness, appeared before the Board of Police Commissioners in Mayor Stewart’s office at 3 o’clock yesterday afternoon,

Hamilton Times.   January 18, 1895.

The man who had been the center of attention in local and provincial newspapers for several weeks, Hamilton Police Chief Hugh McKinnon, finally made his way to the Hamilton City Hall to face the music.

McKinnon’s appearance before the Hamilton Board of Police Commissioners had been repeatedly requested but he had not done so. His bad health, backed with letters from doctors, had been the reason for his not showing up to explain why he had been absent without leave.

McKinnon had forwarded a letter stating in a rambling way that he was innocent of any charges of immoral conduct. His request to be given time to prove his lack of guilt had been refused. His presence was demanded for a meeting to be held in the Mayor’s City Hall office on January 17, 1895.

The three Police Commissioners, Mayor Stewart, Judge Muir and Magistrate Jelfs were all there for the meeting, as were members from each of Hamilton’s daily newspapers:

“Without any formality, the Mayor suggested that Chief McKinnon should give an explanation or statement in connection with the charge that had been made against him in the public press.

“The Chief arose to address the Board, but he was too weak to remain standing, and was allowed to take a seat. He said that, in the first place, he regretted that he had not been physically able to appear before. In connection with the explanation that he had to make, he would have to use certain names, which he did not feel, he said, at liberty to make public, but would give to the Commission privately or in writing.

“Judge Muir – I did not see, if you are an innocent man, why you should object to give names or anything else.

“Chief McKinnon – There is really only one name which I do not want to give.

“Mr. J.W. Nesbitt – It involves another man.

“Magistrate Jelfs – Do you mean that you were away on police business in connection with the man whose name you do not wish to mention?

“Mr. McKinnon – That’s what I want to say.”¹

¹ Hamilton Times January 18 1895.

The Board agreed that the name McKinnon wished to not be made, not be mentioned so that the chief’s explanation could be made forthwith:

 “Chief McKinnon then proceeded to relate the story of his movements from the time he left the city two weeks ago. In the first place, he said, he went to a wedding intending to return the following day. Sometime before that, two ladies called at his office, one explaining that the other, her sister, was in a delicate condition, and had been more or less trilled with by the person of whom she complained. She wished to cover her sister’s trouble. He (the Chief) said that if the man was in a financial position to do so, he should maintain her. He wrote to this person and in a week an answer came back that was not satisfactory.

“Mayor Stewart – Is that letter in the police book?

“Chief McKinnon – Yes, sir. Continuing, the Chief said that he tried to find out through the officer of the place where the man lived, the business of the person in question and where he could be found. He got the information that the man was of some substance and advised the sisters to go and have an interview with him. They said it was of no use as he would put them off. The Chief then suggested that he might go and have an interview with him, and also suggested a lawyer. Some days later the sisters again called and he again suggested a personal interview. This happened just before the wedding. On the day after the wedding, he thought the time opportune, and by wiring the chief officer of the town, located the man. He then wired Mrs. Gould asking if she and her sister would go, and the reply was that they would. Under his direction they went to Guelph and he met them there. That was on Thursday and he intended to go right on to see the man, but got a telegram from the chief officer not to go until Saturday night. Next day (Friday) he started out alone to find the man, and at 11 o’clock that night sent him a telegram to Acton. Mrs. Gould went with him, but the sister was too sick. They saw the man who agreed to go to Guelph that night. He did do so and things were satisfactorily arranged financially. That night, he and the sisters returned to Toronto. At the Grand Union, he told the bookkeeper who he was, got a room for himself, and two rooms for the women. Then he started out to make arrangements for a place for the one to stay until her trouble was over. He did not return to the hotel until 11 o’clock that night. Unfortunately, he had been imbibing. He remained in Toronto until Tuesday. Further than that he was drinking, he said, there was absolutely nothing improper. He was particularly careful in his dealing with the women that there should be nothing improper.

“Having completed his statement, the Chief was subjected to a succession of questions for half an hour.”¹

          The questioning of McKinnon was pointed:

“Magistrate Jelfs asked him how it was that the women had registered as Maud and Ethel and he as Mr. Collins. The Chief replied that he did not know that he had been so registered until he saw it in the papers. The name Collins was not used at his suggestion or consent.

“The Magistrate asked who paid the bills and if the Chief had got $9 on a cheque for $35 on the Bank of Hamilton, the Chief replying that he had given a cheque, but it was on the Bank of Commerce, at which he did all his business. He fot some money on the cheque, but was not sure it was for $9. He paid the bills for all three.

“Asked by the Magistrate if he had credit at the Bank of Commerce, the Chief thought he had a little money in the bank, but not much. His cheque, however would be good.

“Judge Muir asked him if he thought any respectable man would go around as he had done, with another man’s wife and sister, staying at the same hotels and in adjoining rooms. Chief McKinnon replied that, there being two sisters and three people, the impropriety did not occur to him at the time, particularly as he was well-known in the hotel.

“Mayor Stewart asked if he had gone away to institute criminal proceedings or to settle a case, the Chief replying that he had gone in order to make an amicable agreement.

“To Judge Muir he said he did not register at all in Guelph because he did not wish to be interviewed.

“The Magistrate wanted to know if he had known the women before and had been very frequently at their house, Mr. McKinnon replying that he had known them; that he had been two or three times at their house when Mrs. Gould was living there, and two or three times since, but never when Mrs. Gould was alone.

“Magistrate Jelfs asked the Chief if he thought it was proper for a chief of Police to go around in the interest of a girl in a seduction case, but the Judge said that this was no question to ask – no one could attempt to defend such conduct.

“Mayor Stewart – What we want to know is how the name Collins came upon the hotel register.

“Chief McKinnon – I told the man plainly it was Chief McKinnon, of Hamilton.

“Judge Muir – Then the clerk must have taken it for granted that the name would suit you.

“Mr. J.W. Nesbitt informed the Board that a particular friend of his in Toronto had informed him that the hotel clerk had used the name Collin because he thought the Chief was on detective business and Collins was the first name that came into his mind. He put the women down under the same name to keep track of the bills.

“To Mayor Stewart the Chief said that when he stayed away beyond the time he was allowed he did not send word to the sergeant major.

“With the remark that if any man had proposed having an improper time, he would act just as the Chief acted, Judge Muir announced that he had no more questions to ask, and that the Commission agreed to meet at three o’clock today to think over and discuss the case.

“Chief McKinnon withdrew stating that if given the opportunity, he could prove the truth of all he had said.”¹

At this point, the three Police Commissioners, with Chief McKinnon, moved into the mayor’s private office to discuss next steps.

At three o’clock, a decision that that been made behind closed doors was ready to be made public:

“Chief McKinnon asked that the judgment be not read until Mr. Nesbitt should arrive. Mr. Nesbitt and Mr. Gauld, his partner, were telephoned for and were found to be at the Court House.

“Mr. Gauld was got in ten minutes.

“The judgment was as follows:

“The Commissioners feel that Chief McKinnon’s own admission that during his absence he remained at different hotels or nearly a week with another man’s wife, and her sister, under the circumstances, is sufficient to bring about the forfeiture of the respect which the members of the force should have for their head, and cannot be overlooked. Such open and flagrant violations of the proprieties of correct living shock the moral sense of the community and impair the usefulness of the Chief to such an extent as in the opinion of the Commissioners to render it incumbent for them without further investigation to ask for his resignation.

“Chief McKinnon simply asked for a little time in which to get his affairs into shape.

“”The Commissioners agreed to take his resignation right there, but to make it to take effect at any they may see fit.”