The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1858

The year 1858 started with an interesting situation.  City Marshal William C. Getman, who'd served in that office since May 1856, was also elected Los Angeles County's sheriff.  This circumstance had not happened before and wouldn't again, certainly not in later days when it would be impossible for one man to do both jobs.

Getman had only been in the sheriff's position for a few months when he went, on the morning of 7 January, to investigate a situation involving a mentally ill man named Reed.  When Getman confronted Reed and tried to defuse the situation, the latter shot and killed the marshal.  Constable William W. Jenkins, who was at the center of a major controvery involving his killing of a man in July 1856 just after Getman became marshal, was wounded by Reed and injured the assassin, who was finished off by constables Robert Hester and Frank Baker and Under-Sheriff William H. Peterson.

The next day, the council met in an extraordinary session called by Mayor John G. Nichols "to take into consideration the vacancy now existing in the office of City Marshal, owing to the sudden death of William Getman, the previous incumbent."  The council then appointed city jailor Eli M. Smith as a temporary replacement until an election on the 19th, which Smith won.

The Los Angeles Star's coverage of the murder of Los Angeles marshal and county sheriff William C. Getman, 9 January 1858.

At the regular council meeting of the 11th, a committee of Mayor Nichols and council member George N. Whitman were appointed to examine Getman's books and issue a report.  Two weeks later, the two came back and notified the council that they "report defalcation in the different City funds under his charge, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $1696.24, as far as yet ascertained."

Here again was an instance of the city marshal being involved in detrimental conduct, starting with Alviron Beard in 1853-54, then Alfred Shelby the following year, and finally the resignation of George W. Cole before Getman seemed to bring some stability to the office.  Not only did the counci authorize the mayor to seek the missing funds from Getman's sureties, but it had an expired contract with jailer Francis Carpenter to attend to.  The council did renew a pact with Carpenter for 6 months, as well as a provision "that the extra sum of $10 be allowed the present City Marshal to pay an Indian Alcalde [a mayor-judge type position for Indian-related conflicts] monthly."

On 8 February, the council formed a special committee of Nichols, Antonio Franco Coronel, a veteran council member and former mayor, and John Frohling, a founder of Anaheim and vineyardist whose firm of Kohler and Frohling became a major player in California's wine industry.  The trio was appointed to determine with the consultation of an attorney what steps could be taken to recover the city's money from Getman's sureties.  A week later, they recommended, and the council agreed, to hire an attorney to be hired at a 10% commission to secure those funds.

On 1 March, John B. Winston, one of Getman's sureties petitioned the council with many citizens signing in his favor that current council member and the other surety Hiram McLaughlin was unable to pay his half of the amount because of a fire that affected his business as a blacksmith.  Winston proposed that the solution was "by his paying one half, which to him would correspond" and, to this, the council approved.

El Clamor Público, in its 24 April 1858 issue, had this article about the problem of securing $1,800 in city funds misappropriated from marshal and sheriff Getman and which was sought from his sureties, J.B. Winston and Hiram [Charles was an error] McLaughlin.  Thanks to Paul Bryan Gray for making microfilm of the paper available.

Then, two months after the Winston petition, the council took the extraordinary step of submitting the McLaughlin question of whether the council could release him of his obligations to the voters at the upcoming city election.  The result was an overwhelming 227-39 vote to allow the council to use its discretion in the matter. In fact, the council's decision to free McLaughlin of this commitment had to be taken to the state legislature which, in spring 1859, passed an act approving this relief to McLaughlin.

The remainder of the year dealt mainly with issues involving the jail.   At the 28 June meeting, the police committee of wagon-maker John Goller, David M. Porter, future mayor Cristobal Aguilar, Wilmington harbor developer Phineas Banning, and city attorney James H. Lander recommended that jailor's contract be rescinded.  Mayor Nichols was then given the power to issue an agreement with new jailer Joseph Smith for one year from 1 July using the terms of the previous contract, though the council decided to seek new proposals from both the police committee and from new marshal Frank H. Alexander.  It appears, though, that Smith's contract as presented by Nichols was maintained.

Another eternal issue was with Indian drunkenness and the vicious cycle of their arrest and then, in lieu of paid fines, their being hired out as free labor to local ranchers and farmers.  The council ordered that Alexander be empowered to "use effective diligence in preventing the sale of intoxicating liquors to Indians."  

This is a very rare example of an English-language section of El Clamor Público with discussion in the 16 January 1858 edition of the election of Eli M. Smith as marshal after Getman's killing.

The last half of the year was quiet with only minor business, such as the ordering of jail repairs by Joseph Smith, the request of Marshal Alexander to enforce a fireworks ban in the city, and other matters deliberated upon by the council.  

Notably there was no mention in the minutes regarding the dramatic and highly controversial end of November lynching of Pancho Daniel, the co-leader of the gang that assassinated Sheriff James R. Barton and members of his posse hunting Daniel and his associates in January 1857.

The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1857

Considering how fateful 1857 was when it came to crime, violence and criminal justice in greater Los Angeles, mainly with the fearful drama that followed the brutal execution-style killings of Sheriff James Barton and three members of a posse he assembled to track down the Daniel-Flores gang which had terrorized San Juan Capistrano, then part of Los Angeles County, the minute books of the Los Angeles Common (City) Council are surprisingly devoid of material on these aspects.

In fact, other than the fact that the usual regular meetings of the council were postponed for about a month, between 20 January and 18 February, while the crisis was taking place, nothing was actually stated in the recor, other than that there a vague reference that business needed to be conducted because a quorum had been lacking for the gathering scheduled prior to the latter date.

Whatever was discussed tended to be focused on what to do with city prisoners and the notorious chain gang that operated on a vicious cycle that was tantamount to an institutionalized variant of slavery for Indians arrested on Saturday night, tried on Sunday and, unable to pay the sentence of a fine, were hired out for labor, either on the chain gang or to nearby ranchers and farmers.

Just prior to the awful slaughter of Sheriff Barton and his men, city marshal William C. Getman called for the council to determine "the propriety and necessity of the formation of a chain gang," which petition was directed to the special committee on the jail.

At an extraordinary (not regularly scheduled) council meeting in early March, a new ordinance was written for street cleaning, using "all Indians imprisoned or under sentence for a term according to ordinance."  A clarification was added that, "no Indian imprisoned for any offense agains the ordinances of the City shall be detained for more than twenty-four hours in which time he will be tried and sentenced, liberated, or given over to the contractor for cleaning the streets."

While this last sounded liberal and progressive, it could be read to mean that a rushed trial and the quick assignment of Indians to the chain gang was the goal.  Yet, in April a bill presented for expenses incurred in the maintenance of Indians at the jail was disallowed because of the ordinance "which declares that no Indians shall be detained at the City Jail, at the charge of the City."  This evidently was interpreted to signify that it was the county's problem, but the finance committee did recommend paying much of the bill "in consideration of extraordinary services."  It appears that the incarceration of Indians in the jail necessitated this recommendation.

At the same time, the city numerous purveyors of liquor petitioned the council for a reduction in the license to sell spirits.  This would have the double effect of allowing more liquor to be sold in the City of the Angels, but of reducing revenues needed to deal with the problem of intoxicated citizens through the town's criminal justice system.

In mid-April, there was some discussion about a citizen petition for "the rent of a room to be paid for by the Common Council, to serve as an Armory Hall, for a voluntary company called the 'Southern Rifles."  The rise of citizen militias, no doubt as a reaction to real or perceived inefficiencies with law enforcement, was a major question in greater Los Angeles during the 1850s and, in some ways, mirrored issues throughout the United States.

This 1857 lithograph by Kuchel and Dresel and published by Britton and Rey of San Francisco as part of a series of California views, is a rare and detailed though highly sanitized view of pre-Civil War Los Angeles.  It was issued four years before the first photograph of the town was taken and about fifteen years before images were commonly published in stereoscopic form.  

While militias were the reason for the second amendment to the federal constitution and it was presumed these citizen-staffed organization were essential for common defense, the reality turned out to be very different than theory.  It can be said that there were several citizen companies that mobilized in the aftermath of the Barton slayings and some did good work in tracking the bandits, reconnaissance, and other duties, while others did shoddy work, such as letting some bandit members escape during simple guard duty.

The Civil War later would reveal just how poorly organized and train citizen militias really were and writers have observed that these groups were more social clubs for drinking and fraternizing than for defense.  Much of the reason for the formation of the National Guard was to retool the concept of citizen militias into more reliable organizations.

In any case, the Council responded that it was "considering itself without the power to dispose of city funds for the support of any volunteer company."  The use of volunteer citizen companies did continue for some time after, however--mainly, as noted above, during the Civil War, when Los Angeles was a secessionist hotbed and militias of Southern sympathizers and of northern leaning citizens were formed.

Also, in April, the council returned to the question of how city prisoners were maintained and processed through sentencing and a draft ordinace was written, followed by a police committee suggestion that the word "Indian" in the street cleaning ordinance be replaced with "Person."  Again, this has the look of a forward-thinking recommendation, but it might also have been a way to mask reality with something official that looked non-discriminatory.  On 29 April, the council approved this change and sent it to the mayor for his signature.

This was just in time for a change in personnel after the spring election in early May.  Not long afterward, an acute problem with the town's finances was shown when Mayor John G. Nichols told the council that a prevailing agreement reached with the jailer, Eli M. Smith, that would pay Smith $50 a month for all prisoner board and services was in the breach because the jailer had not been paid in four months.

In June, Nichols returned to present to the council a new contract executed with Smith "for Board of City prisoners and other matters connected therewith, whereby the City will be in a  great measure relieved from expenses on account of her prisoners."  While the council promptly approved the new agreement, the terms were not specified--it is assumed that the county agreed to shoulder some of the financial burden for prisoner maintenance.

Research in the council minute books found nothing for the last half of 1857, so that all that can be given here is for the first six months of the year.  As a recurring problem, however, the management of the jail, particularly in the outlay of funds, was a major preoccupation for a small town with a lean budget based on low tax revenues.  The Gold Rush had ended, a national depression broke out in 1857, the local cattle economy was in a doldrums and fiscal issues were becoming tougher for city officials to handle.