1914-03-18

“The motion of the authorities in deciding to exclude the press from court room tomorrow, when the trial of A. B. Mackay and James Gow, prominent men, summoned on serious charges, comes up, had caused a great deal of comment.”

          Hamilton Spectator.   March 18, 1914.

          Once again, Hamilton Police Court proceedings would not be accessible to reporters and the public.

          At the Police Court on Thursday March 19, 1914 , a preliminary hearing was to be held, at which several of the young girls involved in the case would be questioned by Police Magistrate Jelfs.

          Jelfs claimed that it was not his decision to close proceedings, but he acceded to a request from Crown Attorney Washington :

          “ ‘Although I did not make the suggestion, I heartily approve of it,’ said his worship, who explained that it was necessary the names of the girls who would testify should be fully protected from publicity.”¹

               ¹ “Public and Press Won’t Be Admitted : Gow-Mackay Case To Be Heard Tomorrow Behind Closed Doors : Crown Attorney Says This Is In the Interests of Public Morals.”

          Hamilton Spectator.    March 18, 1914.

          The Crown Attorney also argued that the ban was necessary in the interests of public morals :

          “ ‘There are a number of young girls to give evidence in this case,’ said Mr. Washington. “It is hard enough to get them to testify in the presence of court officials only; and if we allowed the public or reporters in, this difficulty would be greatly increased. We also desire above all else to protect the names of these witnesses, and the only way it can be done is by barring everyone from except those whose duty requires them to be there. Some of these girls are not even known by their own mothers to be connected with this case, and if I can prevent it, they will not know. Furthermore, there is nothing to be gained by publishing a lot of evidence, much of which will not be of the most savory kind, and for all these reasons, and particularly in the interests of the young girl witnesses, the public and the press will be barred from the hearing.

          “ ‘I am being besieged with requests from prominent citizens for permission to be allowed in at the hearing. Even lawyers and preachers are among those who are desirous of being present, but to one and all, the answer is given that there will be no one admitted, except those whose duties require them to be there.’ ” ¹

               While speaking to the Crown Attorney, the Spectator reporter posed a question which had been causing a lot of “street talk” since the previous Saturday. The public wanted to know why summonses, not warrants for arrest, had been issued to Mackay and Gow:

          “ ‘ You will have to go to Magistrate Jelfs for that information,’ was the reply. ‘I had nothing with the issuing of the summonses, but I might say for your benefit that the act states that a warrant shall be issued only when it is feared the defendants will leave the country, and there was no good grounds for such a belief in this case.’ ”¹

               Returning to Police Magistrate for a comment on the matter, Jelfs said “Deputy Chief Whatley told me the Crown Attorney required summonses be issued, and rather than have any difference of opinion on the matter, I issued the summonses.” ¹

               The Herald had found out that a total of 12 girl witnesses had been subpoenaed to give evidence, including two girls from Brantford and one from Toronto.

          Jeanette Smith, the principal girl witness in the case, had been in custody for nearly two weeks after her mother had gone to the police about the actions of her daughter. Her mother did visit Jeanette on Wednesday, a visit which cheered the girl who had been complaining of being in a state of nervousness about the matter.

          Also on Wednesday, the house at Hughson and Charlton street had been seized by the sheriff. It was learned that James Gow’s wife had a half interest in the property. It was also learned that the house was richly furnished, and that valuable statuary and pictures adorned the rooms.

          Mr. Mackay returned from his quick trip to Detroit, and as he passed through the railway station refused to comment on the charge against him. James Gow also made no statement to the press, as he was at his home and had not been seen.

 (To Be Continued)

         

1914-03-17

Behind closed doors at the police court Tuesday morning, March 17, 1914, A. B. Mackay and James Gow, responded in person to the summonses which had been presented to them the previous Saturday.

          As noted in the Spectator, “unusual precautions were taken by the police to see that the newspapermen were prevented from getting apprised of the facts in the case.”

¹ “Mackay and Gow Sent to High Court Today : Magistrate Remarked That Case Prepared By Deputy Chief Whatley Was Strong : Reporters Were Driven From Building and One Arrested For Contempt.”

Hamilton Spectator.  March 17, 1914.

When the defendants and witnesses arrived at the police court, there was a melee :

“Several photographers endeavored to take pictures of them as they entered. Deputy Chief Whatley ordered his men to clear away people who were hanging about.”¹

When the day’s session began, Police Magistrate George Jelfs changed the schedule of cases to be dealt with. He moved a juvenile case to first on the list, and as juvenile cases were then handled in camera, the magistrate, court clerk and defendants moved into the magistrate’s chambers. The Mackay-Gow case was then dealt with in the chambers behind closed doors.

Reporters, suspecting that something was up, set themselves up in the hall outside the magistrate’s chambers :

“As soon as the juvenile case was disposed of, Sergeant Bettles made his appearance and informed the newspapermen that they must get out of there. They retired to the sergeant’s room, but were only there a short time when Deputy Chief Whatley appeared and told them they would have to leave the building. The Scribes pleaded with the deputy not to put them out and he agreed to them going to the magistrate’s waiting room.”¹

Some reporters sneaked into the old police cells hoping to get some information on the case from those awaiting their court appearance. They were quickly discovered and removed from there. Others went to the basement of the police court to interview witnesses waiting to be called, hoping that some information might be found out that way.

Finally one reporter went outside, and somehow, he quickly procured a ladder :

“He kept on climbing the ladder until he found that he could see through the fan-light what was going on. A policeman discovered him and the deputy sent a man up the ladder to order him down. He was promptly taken into custody, charged with contempt of court.”¹

The police magistrate then suspended everything regarding the Mackay-Gow case, and the newspaperman from the ladder incident was marched into the open court room.

The Crown Attorney suggested that perhaps the reporter did not understand that Mackay-Gow case had been formally placed in camera and that meant no access by the press. The reporter frankly responded that he knew the case was placed in camera and what that meant. The magistrate then gave the reporter a stern warning and told him in no uncertain to get out of the building and stay out.

Next, the reporters who had been sitting in the magistrate’s waiting room were told that they also had to leave the building, an order from Police Chief Smith :

“Then the police carefully guarded every entrance. Of course, this made it difficult to get details of the case presented by the police, but from gossip that filtered through from some of the witnesses themselves, the scandal which has been public talk, was laid bare.”¹

It was learned the young girls involved in the case did not make an appearance at the hearing. The police did present a portion of the evidence that they had gathered, mainly relating to the allegation that the accused men had improper relations with girls under the age of 18 years.

Also it was alleged that the girls had been approached on the street by a man, not Mackay or Gow, who invited them to the house on Hughson street. The man, known only to the girls, as “Daddy” told them of entertainments which were taking place at the house. At the house they were introduced to strange men.

The evidence presented by the police stopped at this point.

The magistrate had heard enough to order that Mackay and Gow be committed for trial.

Mackay and Gow were immediately taken to the cells where they had to await the decision of the Wentworth County judge as to whether they would be granted bail and how much it would be.

Approached by newspaper men after he had left the building, Magistrate Jelfs responded to questions by indicating that he had nothing to say. However then he said, in response to a question about the strength of the case against the men, “It was a very strong case."

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)

1914-03-16a

“Tons of ice which make vehicular traffic difficult on the shady sides of business streets, and which have transformed most of these thoroughfares into a chain of miniature lakes, will not be removed  unless the citizens ‘holler’ loud enough for the works department to hear.”

          Hamilton Spectator.  March 16, 1914

          As the winter started to loosen its grip on the city of Hamilton in March, 1914, the increasing temperatures made for very difficult conditions for operators of the machines which comprised the “vehicular traffic” of the time.

          Generally, the lines for the Hamilton Street Railway’s cars had been kept passable throughout the winter, and the spring thaw had little negative impact.

          The other components of the city’s vehicular traffic stock were motorized vehicles, trucks and autos, plus a variety of horse-drawn conveyances.

For the most part, 1914 was still a time when most autos were taken off the streets, set up on blocks, and the tires removed. Some automobile and trucks drivers were starting to use their vehicles year round however.

The horse-drawn conveyances had little trouble with extreme winter conditions as sleighs were able to glide over ice and snow readily. It was more problematic for horse-drawn carts, wagons etc. when spring started to arrive as it was a question as to when it would be best to switch from sleighs to wheeled wagons. Muddy streets would be a problem for all vehicles, and in 1914 most streets tended to become deep in mud during the spring thaw.

What were added problems for all Hamilton drivers in mid-March 1914 were huge mounds of ice, particularly on downtown streets, notably King and James streets.

Throughout the winter, huge amounts of snow which clogged the streets after snowfalls were simply moved aside to clear paths for the street cars and the other vehicles. Which the constant freeze-thaw cycle, particularly late in the winter, those mounds of snow become frozen solid, and were slow to melt as spring was about to arrive.

Reacting to complaints about the ice formations impeding traffic, the Hamilton Works department issued the following statement :

“It would cost a great deal of money to send out a gang of men with picks and shovels to remove the ice. We are content to let the ice stay where it is unless the citizens begin to holler. That is the usual custom.”¹

¹ Citizens Must ‘Holler” ^: That is the Only Remedy From Ice-Bound Streets, Works Department Says.”

          Hamilton Spectator March 16, 1914.

Although unwilling to tackle the ice banks as a whole, some works department men were sent out to remove the mud that had covered many of them. The explanation was that “with the mud removed, a benign sun would rapidly do the rest – providing the present weather continues.”¹

The Spectator reporter assigned the story on the ice bank matter went on a tour of the downtown streets and described the situation as follows :

“King and James streets, particularly the former, are in a state that is not productive of wild admiration of city hall enterprise. Ice, many inches deep, has accumulated on the shady sides of the thoroughfares. Deep pools of water have formed, several ruts, jagged ridges abound, and passing motor cars produce fountains of muddy water not unlike the effect of the business-side of the street railway company’s street-sweeper.

“Practically the south side of King street, between James and Bay street, is covered in ice, while the conditions on the narrow section of King street, near Ferguson avenue, are much the same. James street presents a thrilling spectacle to the eye, while the market is a marvel in geological formation.”¹

Despite the inconvenience to the travelling public, the Hamilton Works department was not prepared to deal with the ice unless the people started to “holler.”

The cost estimated as being required to do the job was $400.

1914-03-16

“The Waldorf is no more.”

          Hamilton Spectator. March 16, 1914

It was the end of a Hamilton building that had graced the south side of King Street, east of John, since the 1850s.

          Built as a hotel, it was first called the Anglo-American Hotel, but it was too big for the city at the time of its opening. It was then sold, and opened as a school and student residence, the Wesleyan Ladies’ College.

          However, on July 11, 1898, that the handsome building was reverted to its original purpose, and renamed. The new owner, Robert Gilkison, choose to use the name, Waldorf Hotel., for his ambitious venture.

          One of the first employees to be hired by Gilkison to work at the Waldorf Hotel was Frank Speers, whose role was night clerk.

          During the morning of March 16, 1914, the sound of the auctioneer’s call and slammed hammer concluding bids was heard in the big building. The Waldorf Hotel’s history as a business was over, and the sale of its furnishings had begun. Once that effort was over, the building would be demolished to make way for another, more up-to-date hotel to be built on the site.

          The Spectator in its afternoon edition that day noted that “while the closing of the place marked another notch in Hamilton’s progress, it was not without a pathetic touch.”¹

               ¹ “Waldorf Goods Under Hammer : Old Waldorf Had Closed Doors For Good : Frank Speers, Night Man, There for 15 Years.”

          Hamilton Spectator. March 16, 1914.

          The “pathetic touch” in the Spectator’s reporter’s mind was described as follows :

          “There is Frank Speers, the genial night, who has acted in the capacity of night clerk ever since the place was converted into a hotel 15 years ago. Frank is one of the familiar characters around the hotel, and men who frequented the tap room in the evenings will miss his ‘It’s eleven o’clock, gentlemen.’ That was Frank’s way of saying ‘everybody out,’ and while his little call did not always meet with the general approval of the men who imbibed too freely, it was a fond remembrance the morning after.”¹

               Another long-time employee at the Waldorf Hotel was Billy Guest, the chief wine clerk :

          “A tribute to Billy’s popularity and ability was paid to him when the creditors took charge of the place and engaged him to return to his old place and take charge of the bar.”¹

                Billy Guest’s ability as a wine clerk and manager of the bar at the Waldorf was so noted that the company engaged in building the Waldorf’s replacement, the Royal Connaught Hotel, committed to having him serve in the same role when the new hotel was ready for business.

          While the building known subsequently as the Anglo-American Hotel, the Wesleyan Ladies’ College and finally the Waldorf Hotel was slated to be demolished after the auctioneer’s efforts had been finished.

          However, Billy Guest would be kept at work on the site as long as possible as it was proposed to put a temporary roof over the barroom and retain the walls. The bar area would be the final thing to disappear when the plans for the Royal Connaught Hotel demanded that space for the luxury structure which was arising all around it.

1914-03-20a

“Announcement was made this morning that the Bristol property at the corner of Bay and Herkimer streets has been purchased by a syndicate of prominent business men of the city, who intend to erect a first-class, up-to-date apartment house on that corner.”

          Hamilton Herald. March 20, 1914.

          In the Hamilton of early 1914, it was a wise real estate investment on a corner that was sure to attract significant interest.

          The corner of Herkimer and Bay streets was within easy walking distance of the city’s downtown core, and, at the same time, had the Hamilton Street Railway’s electric street car route readily accessible.

          The Hamilton daily newspapers gave some prominence to the announcement, giving considerable detail to the type of building planned for that corner.

          The Herald described the plans prepared by the firm of Stewart and Witton as follows :

          “The building will contain sixteen suites, will be fireproof and have all the modern conveniences. There will be an elevator for passengers and a small electric service elevator for each suite.

          “The basement will contain doctors’ and dentists’ office, janitor’s quarters and baths; also a billiard room for the use of the tenants.

          “Each suite will be made up of a living room, two bedrooms, a dining-room, kitchen and a bathroom, a maid’s room and a maid’s bathroom.

          “A roof garden will be on top of the building, where the tenants may spend the warm summer evenings. On the north side of the building will be a garage building large enough to hold ten large cars.”¹

               ¹ “Big Apartment House to Be Built : It Will Be One of the Most Up-to-Date in City and Cost $100,000 : Building Will Occupy Bristol Property on Herkimer Street.”

 Hamilton Herald. March 20, 1914.

The Spectator reporter located Mr. Stewart of the architectural firm hired to design the apartment house.

Stewart provided extra detail about the plans :

          “He said it would be the very latest design in buildings of this nature. Such conveniences as vacuum cleaners, a refrigeration plant, laundry with dryers and a dumb waiter which will run to a central delivery room in the basement by which all tradesmen will deliver their wares to the occupants of the suites will be installed.”²

               ² “Big Apartment House Planned : Bristol Property Purchased By Local Capitalists : Will Make Way for a Modern $100,000 Building.”

          Hamilton Spectator.

Further elaborating, Stewart provided the Spectator will more on the plans:

          “There will be a storeroom for each suite for the packing away of unused trunks. Another feature in connection will be the installation of a glazed tile chute, by which garbage may be shot to the basement for disposition. On reaching the basement, it will be taken by the janitor to an incinerator which, in turn will heat the water supplied to the suites.

“There will be a small room outside each kitchen for the refrigerator.

“For connection with each suite will be a large balcony, which will be converted into a sunroom in winter.”²

Stewart concluded his interview with the Spectator by declining to name the local investors in the project.

The newspaper accounts of the proposed luxury apartment building all pegged the cost to be in the $100,000 range and that the wrecking of the former Bristol residence would be commenced immediately.

The target date for completion of the Herkimer Apartments was ambitious. It was to be ready for occupancy, hopefully, in just seven months, November 13, 1914. 

1914-03-20a

On March 20, 1914, the Hamilton Herald carried an article announcing that the United States government was offering a reward of $2,500 to anyone who provide a healthy pair of passenger pigeons.

          It was noted that the offering of the reward was made “with little hope of ever facing the necessity of paying the money over.”¹

               ¹ “Made Sky Black : Citizen Recalls Great Flock of Wild Pigeons”

          Hamilton Herald.  March 20, 1914.

          The demise of passenger pigeons, commonly simply called “wild pigeons,” was on a scale of the near-extinction the buffalo.

By 1914, great changes in the natural environment in North America were all too present.

Many people still alive in 1914 could remember vividly the great flocks passenger pigeons. One such individual was a retired Hamilton contractor, William Woodhall, who told the Hamilton Herald reporter that in his diary, of 1859, he had recorded the passage of the gigantic flock of “wild pigeons’ flying from the southwest to the northeast over the city of Hamilton.

Woodhall had noted that the flock was a mile wide in spots, and took more than two hours to pass over the area. Local experts estimated the flock could have been as much as 100 miles long.

Other “old-timers” contacted by the Herald reporter remembered that memorable day when the huge flock passed over the city. They said that the flock was so big that its shadow blocked out the sunlight, requiring people to light their lamps during the midday.

The senior citizens also noted that part of the flock of wild pigeons passed by the top of the escarpment so closely that “people knocked them down with clubs by the dozen, and feasted gloriously on pigeon pot-pie for days afterwards.”¹

In September 1914, the last known passenger pigeon died in captivity.