1914-03-16c

“A. B. Mackay and James Gow, prominent businessmen, who were served with summons by the police on Saturday afternoon, calling on them to answer serious charges, did not appear in police court this morning.”

          Hamilton Spectator. March 16, 1914.

By Monday March 16, 1914, most Hamiltonians had at least heard the rumours about the police activity involving two well-known Hamilton citizens and several young girls.

The men had been merely been given the following summons, but had not been arrested:

          “That for several months past, at Hamilton, in the County of Wentworth, James N. Gow and A. B. Mackay did unlawfully (the said James M. Gow, as the owner, and the said A. B. Mackay as his assistant) did induce and knowingly suffer young girls under 16 years of age to resort to or be in and upon the house and occupied by you, the said Gow, for unlawful and improper purposes.”

¹ “Prominent Men Now Figure in Big Sensation : Summons Served on A. B. Mackay and James Gow : Serious Charge, In Which Young Girls Complain : Police Have Been Conducting Extensive Inquiry”

Hamilton Spectator.   March 16, 1914.

Even before the time scheduled for Gow and Mackay to appear before the Police Magistrate to answer the charge described in the summonses, there was controversy.

The issue was why only summonses to appear were issued, rather than warrants served for their arrests given the serious nature of the charge:

“It is customary in cases of this kind to issue warrants, but it is probable that the social and business standing of the men was the reason summonses were issued.”¹

Indeed the men accused were both prominent Hamiltonians. A. B. Mackay was part of a wealthy local family, owners of several steamships. Only recently, the Mackays had sold out their business to the Canadian Steamships, limited, the firm which controlled a part of shipping on the Great Lakes. A.B. Mackay had just purchased two freight steamers recently. Mackay was a widower.

James Gow was a senior member of a wholesale grocery firm, MacPherson and Glassco. He had recently been involved in a bitter alimony case with his former wife. Gow had lost and had been ordered to pay her substantial alimony.

Both Mackay and Gow were about fifty years of age.

As reporters tried to prepare for the Monday editions of their newspapers, the men summoned were approached for comments on the charges brought against them.

A Spectator reporter connected with Mackay by telephone on Sunday night just as he was about to leave for Detroit to inspect a ship he had just purchased. Mackay refused to make any statement.

“ ‘You see, I have engaged a lawyer, Mr. Kerr, and any statement that is made must come from him,’ ” said Mr. Mackay.

“ ‘Does Mr. Gow care to say anything ?’ he was asked.

“ ‘No, he is here and won’t talk either,’ said Mr. Mackay. ‘Mr. Kerr is acting for both of us, and you will have to get in touch with him.’

“ ‘There is nothing I can say and nothing that my clients should say at the present time,’ said Mr. Kerr.”¹

The house owned by Gow, 194 Hughson street south, which was supposedly the scene of the immorality, was located at the corner of Hughson street south and Charlton avenue.

The Spectator declined to publish the name of the underage girl, whose statements to police had started the major investigation into activities at the house.

The Herald took the opposite decision :

“It is understood that the police will call a young girl named Jeannette Smith, now in jail on a remand on a vagrancy charge, as a witness in this case.

“The girl was arrested last week at the instance of her mother, who, it is said, came across several letters. She asked the police to interfere. They took the young girl into custody on the nominal charge of vagrancy

“The girl is slated to appear in police court tomorrow morning. It is said, however, that she will be remanded until Thursday.

“From this girl, the police secured the names of nine other girls, some of them, it is said, under the age of eighteen, who supplied the police with information which caused the magistrate to issue the summons. Two plainclothes men, Constables Pasel and Kay, served the summons.”²

² Gow-MacKay Case Not Called Today : At Request of Crown Attorney Washington It Was Adjourned Till Thursday, Bail Being Fixed At $1,000 : It Is Said That Case May be Tried In Camera Owing to Probable Character of Evidence To Be Offered”

Hamilton Herald. March 16, 1914

On Monday March 16, 1914, a large crowd of interested citizens crowded around the doors of the Hamilton Police Court hoping to get a glimpse of Gow and Mackay. However, neither men appeared. Their lawyer was present and announced that he was appearing of their behalf.

Crown Attorney Washington started, and ended, that day’s proceedings but stating that he wanted an adjournment until Thursday. Magistrate Jelfs granted the request and set bail at $1,000 each, the money being provided immediately by their lawyer.

In an interview with the Herald, Deputy Police Chief Whatley admitted that various investigations into moral conditions in Hamilton had been undertaken in recent months :

“For a year or more stories have been reaching police headquarters of joy rides in automobiles, theatre parties, and wine suppers, in which several well known young girls are said to have figured.

“Deputy Chief Whatley and a number of plainclothes men started a quiet investigation. It is understood that his men have been watching certain places around Hamilton and securing the names of young girls who were under suspicion.

“The time for action, the police say, came with the arrest last week of a young girl, whose mother asked that she be taken into custody. She is said to have told the officers a very sad story, and to have furnished them with a lot of information which they had been endeavoring for weeks to secure.

“On the police court register, a fictitious name was purposely given, so that none of those named by her would have an opportunity of getting a line on whom the police were after.

“At the time that that ‘the girl in the case’ was taken into custody, she was in company with another young girl. This girl was also taken to the police station and questioned by Deputy Chief Whatley, and the names of certain men were mentioned. It is alleged that this girl told a straight story and held nothing back. The police had no desire to hold her and she was allowed her freedom, on condition that she would appear as a witness.

“Three other girls, well known about the city, are implicated, and one of them was ejected from a public hall a week ago for being under the influence of liquor.”²

As the case would not be brought to court for a few days, a prominent police department official, who wished to remain anonymous, told the man from the Herald the police were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence in the case of Gow and Mackay, saying “we did not act until we were thoroughly satisfied the information we received justified prosecuting.”

For the next several days, the case against Gow and Mackay was in limbo, but both prisoners must have learned that under section 217 of the Criminal Code, that a conviction in the charges against them required a prison sentence to follow. The statute provided for no option for a fine and the prison sentences had to be not less than five and not more than ten years in prison.

(To be continued)