The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Criminal Justice, 1854

In October 1853, the third edition of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors convened, with David W. Alexander the chair as he was the previous year,  He was joined by Stephen C. Foster, who filled a vacancy created a few months as noted in the last post; Samuel S. Thompson, who was an early settler in the new "American town" of El Monte in 1852 and who died there about thirty-five years later; Juan Sepulevda (1814-1898), who was from a prominent Californio family; and Cristobal Aguilar (1816-1886), who served four terms on the Common Council, three as a supervisor, and was a three-term mayor.

As was discussed in the last post, the board confronted problems with the expenses of maintaining the jail with a paltry budget and the last board's decision to support the Los Angeles Rangers paramilitary group meant further expenditures, including $1000 given for materials as submitted by board member Foster and Collins Wadhams.  Sheriff James B. Barton had well over $500 in fees due him for his services and $100 for transporting prisoners from San Diego.  Jailor George W. Whitehorn sent in a bill for $566.75 for his salary and maintenance of prisoners.  To be confronted with over $2000 in bills at one meeting was a hefty expense for the board.

Not only that, but the board, on 4 October, approved a bill submitted by constable William B. Osburn for $320 in the matter of two brothers in the Lugo family and associated of theirs in a notorious matter involving accusations and a long drawn-out legal nightmare for the Lugos back in 1851.

There was also the matter of the county's recent agreement to buy the Rocha Adobe off Spring Street from merchant Jonathan Temple for the court house and county offices.  A building committee was asked to secure $1500 from the city of Los Angeles as part of their share in the structure and its improvements for public uses.

Jonathan Temple (1796-1866), seated at right, with his wife Rafaela Cota and son-in-law, Gregorio de Ajuria, was a prominent merchant and land owner in greater Los Angeles.  He sold the Rocha Adobe on the west side of Spring Street to the city and county of Los Angeles in 1854 for use as a courthouse and public offices.  In the rear of the structure, a two-story jail was built that served in that capacity for many years.  Photo courtesy of the Workman and Temple Family Homestead Museum.

Some of these improvements involved board chair David W. Alexander and his business partner, new arrival in town, Phineas Banning, later the father figure of the harbor at San Pedro/Wilmington.  This kind of conflict of interest, of course, would be disallowed today, but not in the looser operations of frontier Los Angeles.  OThere were others bills submitted by those involved in the work and the board gave $2000 to Foster and W.T.B. Sanford to distribute to contractors, while also empowering the two to collect $1000 from the city for its share of the work.

On 8 November, came an urgent request from the county clerk, John W. Shore, which led to a board resolution

that the room designated for his use in the County Buildings is insufficient for the proper performance of his duties . . . [and] for the safe custody & proper arrangment of his archives, therefore [it is] ordered that the room designated in the County Court House as a Jurors room, be taken possession of by the said Clerk and appropriated for his use in addition to the front room already intended for the use of said County Clerk.

It is not stated where the jurors were supposed to meet for the deliberations, but, if the clerk's quarters were not improved, who knows what would have happened to the minute books (and, this post would not have been possible!)  In fact, there was a fire in the county clerk's space later that also threatened to destroy the archival material, some of which has survived.

As 1854 dawned, major bills were submitted by the district attorney, Kimball H. Dimmick, for $345, William Osburn, who was also a doctor attending on the jail and charging $175,Sheriff Barton for $350, and for jailor Whitehorne for nearly $600.  There was also an interesting notation in which the board "allowed a/c/ [account] of Nelson Mason for dunner for 12 hungry jurymen."  Funds were also expended for the funeral of constable John (Jack) Wheelan, the first law enforcement officer in Los Angeles killed in the line of duty, when he was cut down in Sonoratown, north of the Plaza, a few weeks prior.

Another expenditure was the rent of the buildings used as the jail in recent months, including from Juan Dominguez for $200, although a quarter of that was in scrip (I.O.U.), a common procedure at the time for a frequently cash-strapped county, and from Francisco J. Alvarado, for the last two months of 1853, for $28.  As work on the jail continued, a bill for $216 was submitted by Alfred Foster for his contributions.

Another indication of financial stress and efforts to mitigate the rising costs payable by the county came with a petition from the board on 4 January to the state's supreme court calling for a reduction in fees paid to the sheriff for attendance at the courts, this "being too high and disproportionate to the fees of other offices and from the multiplicty of our Courts causing a heavy burthen [sic] on the revenues of this county,"

In March, Los Angeles witnessed its first legal execution, with Manuel Herrera was hung for the murder of Nestor Artiaga and, in early April, carpenter Ira Gilchrist was compensated an unknown amount "for services as Carpenter making Gallows &c."  At the same meeting of the 3rd, jailor Whitehorne submitted bills totaling nearly $700 for maintenance of prisoners and the facility, while Barton charged almost $750 for attendance at the courts.  It also appears that the appeal to the state's highest court for relief on the sheriff's fees went nowhere, because in early July, Barton and Whitehorne submitted bills totaling over $1000.

However, it was generally pretty quiet when it came to criminal justice matters for the remainder of the year, at least as reflected by County Clerk Shore in the minutes.  A new slate of supervisors took office on 2 October, led again by Alexander, who was obviously highly respected given his consistency in being elected and named chair of the board.

The only returning supervisor for 1854-55 was Cristobal Aguilar.  Newly seated members included David Lewis, another early settler in El Monte, when it was established a couple of years previously and two prominent men with long ties to the criminal justice system and politics in Los Angeles.

The first was James R. Barton, who was still serving as sheriff when he secured his seat with the supervisors (as seen a few times on this blog, it was possible then to hold two elected offices at the same time).  Yet, Barton would only serve the single term, perhaps finding that the excitement and, probably, the fees earned, as sheriff were preferable to being a politician.  As covered here in detail, though, Barton was killed, along with members of a posse, while hunting for the Flores-Daniel gang of thieves in what later became Orange County in early 1857.

The other major figure was Agustín Olvera, who had a number of positions of authority in the Mexican period, and was the first county judge, serving until 1853 and was simultaneously a member of the common council, before he went into private practice as an attorney for a couple of years.

What is interesting, though, is that, although there was a spate of crimes, including notorious murders committed in the latter part of 1854, these warranted almost no mention in the supervisor's minute book.  It was stated in early October that district attorney Benjamin Eaton submitted $175 in bills for charging criminals in indictments.  At the same meeting of the 3rd, a special constable, W. Burt, was mentioned briefly--perhaps he was hired because of the crime wave.

A week later, the board was presented with an account by Charles O. Cunningham of El Monte, E. O. Johnson, and John Weir for $30.75 in the pursuit of criminals.  It may be that the trio went hunting for the killers of James Ellington, a fellow El Monte resident of Cunningham.  Later, Felipe Alvitre and two others were found hiding in Soquel Canyon, in what is now the borderland of Orange and San Bernardino counties near Chino Hills and Brea.  Alvitre's story will be told later in this blog.

The same meeting, on 10 October, the board ordered an increase, despite the fiscal fragility with the county's budget, in prisoner maintenance, so that whites (this would include Spanish-speakers) would have their needs met at 75 cents per day, while Indians would have to get by on materials costing 50 cents.  At the end of November, it was ordered that, despite the lowering of it before, the salary of the district attorney was insufficient and that it should be increased by $150 per month, "considering the increasing amount of labor of his office."  Again, the recent crime wave was almost certainly a factor.

The next post takes us to 1855, which started off with a great deal of drama, but more on that next time around . . .

The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1850

While Congress debated and dithered about what to do with the newly-conquered possession of California, residents took matters into their own hands and adopted a constitution in late 1849 and set elections for April to get the machinery of government going in newly established counties.

The spring 1850 elections included a seven-member "Common Council" for Los Angeles--incidentally, the "Common Council" existed for nearly forty years until a new city charter was adopted and the term "City Council" was employed starting in 1889.

The first council members, who began their work at an inaugural meeting on 3 July 1850, included:

• President David W. Alexander, who hailed from Ireland and came to Los Angeles from New Mexico in 1842, working as a merchant; 
• Cristobal Aguilar, a native Californio who held offices in the Mexican era and went on to serve several terms as a council member, mayor and county supervisor; 
• Alexander Bell, an American merchant whose nephew Horace has been often discussed in this blog; 
• Julián Chavez, a native of New Mexico who came to Los Angeles in the 1830s, also holding office in the Mexican era, and was a council member and county supervisor at various points into the 1870s, as well as being the namesake of Chavez Ravine; 
• Morris Goodman, the first Jew to serve in an official capacity in Los Angeles, was a council member for four years and was later a deputy sheriff and briefly a county supervisor.  Later, he was a merchant in Anaheim;
• Manuel Requena, a native of Mexico who came to Los Angeles in 1834, was alcalde (equivalent to a mayor) shortly after his arrival, but also was a long-time council member and supervisor; and
• Jonathan Temple, the second American or European to live in Los Angeles, arriving in 1828, and who served on the ayuntamiento (council) and was a treasurer during the Mexican era.  Temple's political involvement in the American era was limited, however, and he was a merchant and rancher with a great deal of property and wealth.

In its first meetings, the council was concerned with finding suitable and affordable quarters for city business, with Temple offering an adobe building for county use.  This would be considered a conflict of interest now, but the looser standards of the time applied and the structure was leased from him.

Salaries for city officials were established, including a $2000 salary for the mayor, $500 for the city attorney (who, however, collected fees for elements of his work), $600 for the council secretary, and $600 for the city marshal, who originally was going to be paid strictly in fees for the processes he served.

Another early item of business was negotiation with the county on a better jail.  At the time, the administration of county affairs was with the three-member Court of Sessions, composed of county judge Agustín Olvera and two associate justices from townships in the county (the Board of Supervisors was established in 1852 when having the court try to manage the county's business and maintain a busy criminal and civil court calendar was just too much).  

The Sessions court requested some lots and a $2000 city subsidy for a jail and Temple and Requena were appointed to conduct negotiations.  On 20 July, the duo recommended that the city provide a lot for a jail, so long as the city could make use of the facility, and for no charges to the city except for maintenance of prisoners sentenced under order of city officers.  However, they advised the council to send its regrets that there was no possibility of ponying up the $2000 requested by the court.

By the end of July, the council worked on proposed rules for its operation, including the creation of several committees, one of these titled the "Police" committee, though this really meant, "to attend to everything touching the comfort, health and adornment of the city," rather than crime.  Requena and Bell were the first members of this committee and, on the last day of the month, were asked to report at the next meeting on a draft ordinance of "Police Regulations."

Here's an early view of the Plaza Church, built in 1822 and still standing on Main Street across from the Plaza.  To the north is a portion of "Sonoratown" and, in the distance, a piece of white-fenced Calvary Cemetery, now the site of Cathedral High School (New Calvary was moved to East Los Angeles later).

At the 7 August meeting, Bell and Requena made their suggestions.  The first was that "the city's prisoners shall be formed in a chain-gang, and occupied in public works."   This system, in effect for years, was highly controversial, mainly because of the vicious cycle perpetrated on native Indians, who were generally paid in alcohol at the end of the week, got drunk and were arrested and jailed, and then sent out to work off their fines, because they weren't paid in money.  The next weekend, the situation was repeated and it was a blight on the city's operation.

The second recommendation concerned a proposed prohibition on carrying guns, except by those "whose occupation makes its use necessary," presumably the marshal, constables, sheriff and deputy sheriffs, although this was not specified.

Another questionable suggestion was:

the police shall gather in the vagrants of both sexes, putting them under arrest, and the Recorder [a short-lived position in government] shall assign them to serve private parties under proper and just conditions.  Those who relapse into vagrancy, shall be confined in the chain-gang, until they produce a bondsman prepared to give a pecuniary security, at the Recorder's option, guaranteeing the vagrant shall in future be engaged in some useful occupation or leave the City limits.

Just how it was proposed to properly enforce this ordinance, defined "proper and just conditions" for what was essentially penal servitude, and guarantee a vagrant's "useful occupation" and a few of the key questions to be asked about this strange recommendation.

Other suggestions included allowing no pits in city limits, requiring each householder to clean the front of his residence to the center of the street, keeping filth, clothes washing and the slaughtering of cattle away from streets and zanjas (common water ditches), and mandating that all cattle had to be tied to tame oxen.

Recognizing the problem Los Angeles had with dozens of drinking houses, Requena and Bell proposed that every shop or tavern owner as well as anyone who had a structure of two or more rooms "shall put a light at the door during the first two hours of every dark night."  Shop and tavern proprietors were to close at 8 p.m. in the winter and 9 p.m.in the summer.

Curious proposals continued, including the proposed prohibition against riding horses or other animals at a "furious rate" and a proscription for those walking the street "in a scandalous manner" who would "molest the neighbors with yells or in any other manner" if it was later or if "the offender be intoxicated."  In these latter cases, the Recorder was to be empowered to fine the offender $10-25 and impose a chain gang sentence of 10-25 days.  This punishment was also recommended to anyone who played cards in the streets "regardless of the kind of game" or any game that was played in gambling houses taxed for the privilege of allowing gambling.

After discussion, there were amendments and approvals for all, with one notable change coming concerning a different sentence for public disturbance for native Indians: "If he be an Indian, he shall pay a fine of three to five dollars or be imprisoned eight days in the chain-gang."  When Requena requested a roll call, the vote was 5-2 to accept the ordinances as amended.

By mid-August, however, it was realized that portions of the ordinances were just unrealistic--this will be picked up at the next post!