The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1854

In its fifth year of operation, the Los Angeles Common (City) Council started off its year by dealing with the pressing problem of the town's troublesome marshal, Alveron S. Beard.

As noted in other posts on this blog, Beard, a native of North Carolina who lived in Arkansas prior to migrating to Los Angeles, started off as a private school teacher before securing election as marshal in 1853.  He hadn't been in the position long before he complained about his pay and the council found problems with his record-keeping on reimbursements and fees.

Future Los Angeles marshal Alveron S. Beard was an unemployed 27-year old resident of Pine Bluff, Arkansas when the 1850 census was taken.

Consequently, at a special council meeting convened on 6 January, attorney Lewis Granger showed up to announce that he was withdrawing as a surety for Beard (sureties put up money to guarantee the efficiency of the office holder.)  The reason was soon made apparent as council minutes recorded that the body resolved "that the Mayor [Antonio Franco Coronel] should take possession of the Assessment Roll in the hands of the Marshal and all moneys by him collected and not turned into the City Treasury."

The following night was a continuation of the special meeting and it was there that the mayor reported to the council that

the Marshal had promised to turn over to him the Assessment Roll and his accounts, but had not done so, whereupon he [the Mayor] together with an interpreter, once more did go to make the same demand and received the same promise, which to this hour has not been fulfilled.

The council then voted for a resolution that ordered Beard and his sureties to appear at the next meeting or, failing this, the body would "fill his place."

Two nights later, on the 9th,  John G. Nichols, who had been mayor in 1852-53 and would be again in 1857-58, appeared to withdraw as the second of the embattled marshal's bondsmen.  The minutes then recorded that: "an excuse of the Marshal, A.S. Beard, was read and rejected as irrelevant" and the council then resolved to amend the city ordinance regulating the collection of taxes so that the marshal would no longer serve in that function and the duty handed over to the city treasurer, Samuel Arbuckle.

Another board-approved resolution showed just how poorly matters had gone with Beard:

The communication presented this morning to Council by A.S. Beard, City Marshal, is so grossly insulting in its language and tone and unworthy of an employee of this City that it does not deserve to receive any consideration from this Body.

A copy of this resolution was transmitted to Beard and it is too bad that his statement to his bosses has not survived.  As rough and violent as the City of Angels was in that period, his letter must've been something!

Six years after being ignominiously removed as Los Angeles marshal, Beard won election as a Justice of the Peace in San Bernardino as reflected in his 1860 census listing.

Two weeks went by and, on the 23rd, council secretary and future (and colorful) county judge, William G. Dryden, repoted that he delivered the council's damning resolution to Beard.  Mayor Coronel stated that he finally had the information on collected fines for November, being delayed in doing so by Beard's unfathomable actions in withholding that information for so long.  The council then issued a resolution asking Dryden to work with Arbuckle in getting from Beard that assessment roll and tax collection accounts which still had not been forwarded.

A week later, the pair appeared before the council and reported that they finally secured the role and accounts, but found that some 40% of the amount was missing and that Beard should be answerable for the shortfall.  Meanwhile, Arbuckle was ordered to send a bill to Granger and Nichols, as Beard's sureties, for the vanished $335.  Having taking these actions, the council followed by declaring the office of marshal vacant, appointing George W. Whitehorne as a temporary marshal, and an election was set for 16 February.

A week later, a chastened Beard wrote the council, with the minutes recording, "in which he confeses having used about four hundred dollars of the tax levy with which he had been entrusted, and asks for fifteen' days grace to pay it back."  Unimpressed and unmoved, the council issued a resolution that, because Arbuckle had already presented a bill to Nichols and Granger, "they insisted on being informed as to the date up to which Beard had caused the said shortage."  Moreover, they determined, because Beard had confessed, the bill to his sureties should be paid.

The special election included four candidates for office and, out of 280 total votes, Whitehorne was declared the winner with 122 of them.  Meanwhile, Arbuckle was preparing a new report on Beard's defalcation for the next meeting and January licenses and fines showed a deficit of $247.50 chargeable to the former marshal.

On 27 February, Mayor Coronel informed the council that Beard had forwarded $168 to him, which was the amount of the license fees collected in January.  Dryden was then appointed an attorney-in-fact to collect the rest of the money owed by Beard, with a commission of 10% rendered to the secretary for his work,

Two weeks later, Dryden presented a receipt for $162 from Nichols and Granger that was paid over to Arbuckle, who expected another $211 to be forthcoming. It was not recorded, however, whether that remaining sum ever was collected and remitted to the city's treasury.

Virginia City, Montana was a mining boom town that was the scene of some major vigilante activity in the 1860s.  Beard was a farmer in the community in the 1870 census.

Beard's problems, it turned out, wasn't just fiscal malfeasance.  In August 1853, he and Joanna Mulkkins Gunning were hauled into the Court of Sessions on a charge of bigamy, though there was no recorded disposition.

In late November, Beard appeared before the District Court on a charge of the false imprisonment of an Indian named José Antonio.  The case file noted that a writ of habeus corpus was filed on José Antonio's behalf and that Judge Hayes received a written explanation from Beard that

About dusk yesterday I found the within named Indian at the jail and without asking any questions or without knowing any cause I put him in jail, he or no other person ever told me why or for what he was there & he is now in my custody and is brought before the court.

Talk about a strange lack of application of due process! There was, however, no dispostion in the matter and it appears that Hayes granted the habeus corpus motion and had José Antonio freed.

Two days after that case, the Court of Sessions heard the matter of a murder charge against the marshal in the death of Joaquín Aguilar.  In the case file was an affidavit by William B. Osburn, a doctor, deputy sheriff and justice of the peace, who stated that he and attorney and judge Kimball H. Dimmick went to the home of Felicidad Carrion to care for Aguilar.  The mortally wounded man told the doctor "that he was shot by order of the Sheriff."

When Osburn replied that this was not possible, knowing that the sheriff was James R. Barton, Aguilar insisted that "he certainly was shot by order of the tall, big sheriff that goes always with the cane after Indians."  Now understanding, Osburn went on, "when I asked him if he meant the City Marshal Beard, he replied that he did."

The dying man admitted, however, "that he was a little under the influence of liquor but not much."  In this condition, Aguilar said there an argument and another man pulled out his knife, so Aguilar took out his for self-defense.  He stated that Beard arrived and ordered Aguilar to jail.   When he protested that Beard had no warrant or order, Aguilar told Osburn that Beard ordered a nearby man to shoot Aguilar.  The case file, however, had no stated disposition.

Finally, on 14 April 1854, the Sessions court convened a trial with the ex-lawman charged with embezzlement of public money; that is, of the tax money collected and not forwarded to Arbuckle in a timely manner.  The jury, however, was convinced that Beard was not guilty of embezzlement.

Two years later, in mid-April 1856, Beard came before the Court of Sessions again, this time on a charge of gambling by hosting games of "monte" at his house.  In this matter the indictment was set aside for reason unexplained--probably some fault with how it was worded.  It does not appear that a new indictment was secured, however.

Beard continued to live in Los Angeles on and off for years afterward.  Horace Bell in his Reminiscences of a Ranger did little to conceal his utter contempt for the disgraced marshal, claiming that in summer 1853, the marsha sent the Los Angeles Rangers, of which Bell was a member, to arreest some "Mexican thieves" but then played some unstated trick on the citizen militia.  According to Bell, the Rangers dragged Beard through a ditch and "left him more dead than alive."  Though Bell went on to say the incident led to a trial involving the Rangers, surviving court records and newspapers show no such matter appearing.  Moreover, Bell claimed Beard was forced to resign as marshal because of the Rangers incident, though it is obvious that it was the poor management of city funds that did the marshal in.

In 1880, the aging Beard was listed as a farmer in the San Pasqual township of San Diego County.

Referring to Beard as living a "life of vagabondism that has led down to the present day"  Bell went on to describe the former marshal as, in 1876, being

a living and hideous mass of human rottenness and festering corruption, shunned even by the canine street scavengers, viewed not with pity, but with loathing and disgust, even by the most debased of mankind . . . an outcast from society and a begger for alms.

This  remarkable, even for Bell, description, however, seems belied by a 28 May 1876 article in the Los Angeles Herald, which talked about an old cannon dredged up in town and which was believed to have dated to the time of the Mexican-American War some three decades prior.  The article noted that

Mr. A.S. Beard, an old resident of Los Angeles, informs us that it was discovered on the site of an old fort in Los Angeles . . .

Beard, who enlisted with the American army in 1846 in Louisiana, then gave further information as to the cannon's use after the war'e end.  The article does not hint at the debasement of Beard that Bell claimed was the case.

The former marshal did move around during his later years, even securing election in San Bernardino as a Justice of the Peace when the 1860 census was taken and then later living in Elko County, Nevada; in the famed mining town of Virginia City, Montana, where vigilantism reigned supreme for a period in the 1860s; and in San Pasqual, where the Californios won their most significant military victory during the Mexican War, near San Diego, but any rottenness and corruption, begging for money and so on, as expressed by Bell, cannot be corroborated and he was listed as a farmer in the 1870 and 1880 censuses.

Still, Alveron S. Beard may stand in dubious distinction as one of the most corrupt and dishonest public figures in the City of the Angels at a time when the town was rife with problems.

The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1853

In 1853, its fourth year of operation, the Los Angeles Common Council continued to deal with a range of criminal justice issues representative of an underfunded, understaffed frontier community.

One of these was about finances, as one of the main sources of revenue for the operations of the town of a few thousand consisted of fines for infractions of offenses of Los Angeles' ordinances.  In the first meeting of the year, on 4 January, the total submitted to the city treasurer from the prior month was a whopping $18.18.  At the next meeting, on the 17th, the council resolved to pay Francisco Alvarado a rent for two rooms used as the city jail at $16 dollars, so the fines of the prior month barely covered that expense.

On 5 February, the council reaffirmed its order "that the prisoners who are confirned for violations of the Ordinances be employed in cleaning the streets, and a few of them in canal and street repairs," this being in lieu of fines.

Speaking of the jail, while there had been movement in 1852 towards securing a better facility, the council's attention in the first part of the next year was towards raising funds for a city hall and a public school, the town having neither as dedicated structures.  However, when three bids were received by mid-April for a new city hall on Main Street not far from the Plaza, these were rejected and it was proposed that an existing house be purchased instead.  There would not be a city hall specifically built for that purpose until the late 1880s.

At the 13 May meeting, mayor Antonio Franco Coronel's message was included in the minutes and he discussed the issue of renting structures for the council chamber and mail noting the

importance of owning a building which would serve those purposes, and which not only would fill a long felt want, but also would save expenses, more particularly if in its construction the transgressors of the municipal ordinances were employed to serve out their punishment, which they could do by working in person or contributing with such fines as may be imposed for such offenses

The first day of May included the election for council seats and among the results was that Manuel Requena was again appointed president, while one of the two publishers of the Los Angeles Star newspaper, William H. Rand, was among the new council members.

William H. Rand, co-publisher of the Los Angeles Star, the city's first newspaper, served on the town's Common Council in 1853.  He then left Los Angeles and wound up in Chicago, where he formed what became the Rand McNally publishing empire.

He was to be joined by Pío Pico, former governor of Mexican-era California and one of the most prominent of the area's Californio elite.  However, on the meeting of 23 May, it was recorded that Pico failed to take his seat and was declared removed, with a special election held at the corridor the house of Ignacio Del Valle.  However, Pico was appointed the inspector, so it appears that his purchase of the Rancho Paso de Bartolo in 1852 was the main reason for his decision to forego serving on the council.  His home on that rancho is now a state landmark in Whittier.  As for Pico's replacement, that was Juan María Sepulveda of another prominent Californio family.

Another recurring issue came up at the late May meeting, when the town's new marshal, Alveron S. Beard, elected at the first of the month, made this request: "a petition of the Marshal was read wherein he asks to be paid a salary, and Council resolved that it considers the fees attaching to the office of Marshal as being sufficient."  Beard, it may be remembered, had just emigrated to Los Angeles and was appointed by the council as a school teacher for poor children.

It didn't take long for Beard to become a lightning rod for controversy.  At the 21 June meeting, the Finance Committee reported that Beard exceeded his authority in issuing licenses, rather than just collecting the fees for them, the issuance to be handled by Mayor Coronel.  Beard was at the meeting and "was given to understand that he has no authority to issue licenses."

Another problem raised at the same meeting had to do with a request for payment by the marshal for his arrest of two dozen Indians and four white men (this reflects the chronic problem of Indians arrested for public drunkenness and their consequent subjection to public labor in lieu of fines, referred to here before.)  Beard's claim was rejected because

Council resolved that since the persons arrested had not paid any fine because they succeeded in making good their escape owing to a lack of vigilance on the part of the Marshal, his claim must be denied, excepting two dollars charged for the arrest of a white man who served his sentence.

Jail breaks were, in fact, somewhat common, but this mass escape was egregious enough to be recorded in the minute book.

Then, at the 21 June meeting, Beard submitted a bill for $20 for cleaning the streets, repairing the jail and for the burial of an Indian and this was sent to the Finance Committee for its review.  On 7 July, the committee returned with its recommendation that payment of $10 be forwarded for the first two items, but that Beard's claim for $10 for the burial was "a matter which should have been attended to by the County officials," another example of the marshal's penchant for overstepping his bounds.

At the same July gathering, Mayor Coronel "explained the difficulties arising from employing City prisoners in the cleaning of the streets, and recommended that some steps be taken" to remedy the problem, though it was not stated that the issue was about the marshal's (mis)management.  The result was that the Council decided to take bids for street cleaning from a private contractor at rates up to $40 per month for the remainder of the year.

The matter of the jail and city offices returned to the agenda in August.  On the recommendation of William T.B. Sanford, a two-person Jail and City Offices committee of himself and Requena was formed to confer with the new county Board of Supervisors (the 5-person body took over county management from the Court of Sessions in 1852) "for establishing a jail and City offices in the same building that the County is using for a like purpose."  The two men were directed to not commit the city to any sum higher than $2500.

On 12 September, William H. Rand, a member of the Police Committee with Jose María Doporto, resigned and eventually returned east, where, in Chicago, he formed a printing firm that evolved into the Rand McNally corporation.  A special election brought newly-arrived Iowa attorney Ezra Drown to the council and to a seat on the police commission.

At the meeting of 6 October, county supervisor Stephen C. Foster submitted to the council a resolution from his board "inviting the city to come in jointly [with the county] with the City Offices and Jail" and a draft ordinance was submitted.  The total financial commitment was $2500, with $1500 of that going to the county for the house and lot and the balance due "when the house shall be finished and that portion of the jail belonging to the City according to resolutions of the Board of Supervisors shall have been turned over to the City."  The following day, at a special council meeting, this resolution was approved.

Work finally began late in the year at a building acquired west of Spring Street from former council member Jonathan Temple and, in late November, the key of a room for an office for city use was turned over, with the council agreeing to begin using that space in December.  Requena then reported that he was told by the construction superintendent for both the jail, which was a new structure in the courtyard, and for the city and county offices that it would "be a timely service . . . to anticipate the payment of one thousand dollars which the [city] is under obligation to pay for its share of the said buildings."

A circa 1870s photograph, later printer engraved, of Antonio Franco Coronel, mayor of Los Angeles in 1853 and later state treasurer.  From a biographical sketch of Coronel by Henry D. Barrows, published in the annual of the Historical Society of Southern California, 1900.

Meantime, on 13 December, Mayor Coronel reported to the council that Judge Benjamin Hayes of the District Court issued a ruling "that the City is not entitled to possess a Jail" and the council resolved to form a committee to meet with the judge "to ascertain the true state of affairs."  This discussion, to be led by council member Henry Myles was to be scheduled before members of the state assembly from Los Angeles were to leave for the next session of the legislature, presumably in case statutes needed to be changed.  At the same meeting, $1000 were forward to Sanford by the Jail and City Offices Committee as the city's share of the construction costs to be handed over to the Board of Supevisors.

Finally, as the year headed towards a close, the situation with Marshal Beard continued to be problematic.  In early October another bill from Beard was rejected as not being in proper form, to which three days later, the marshal again petitioned for a monthly salary and, once more, the council rejected his request "because his services are considered sufficiently compensated with the fees stipulated by ordinance."

Beard was nothing if not persistent and, on 23 November, he returned again to ask for a salary and wanted to be paid $65 per month for his services and work.  Exasperated, the council voted for a new resolution, stating that "if he is not satisfied with the fees appertaining to his office, he is at liberty to resign."  Moreover, his bills were such that, he was ordered to provide proof of the services and fees he was claiming, to which the council would give the bills due attention.

As 1854 dawned, the city had the good news of having a new building for city offices as well as a new jail readied, but it also had continuing problems with Marshal Beard to address.  More on that in the next post.

The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1852

Many of the same problems that concerned the Los Angeles Common [City] Council in its first two years continued into 1852, its third.  This included ongoing issues with public disturbances, the inadequacy of the city and county jail, the frequent turnover of city officials, and more.

One interesting development early in the year came at the 21 January meeting when council member Joseph Lancaster Brent presented a draft memorial, or resolution, that he wanted state senator Stephen C. Foster to take to Sacramento which would request the senate to take Los Angeles' existing boundaries, established in the Spanish era as four square leagues, or just under 18,000 acres, and expanding them.

On 4 April 1850, the first California legislature passed an act incorporating the city of Los Angeles and limited its jurisdiction to four square miles, but the common council claimed an area of authority of far more than this, embracing 111 square miles, in an ordinance passed in July 1851.  Meanwhile, the preceding April, the legislature amended its incorporation act to state that, while the city's rights were limited to what the 1850 statute mandated, there were some exceptions with respect to water, because, clearly, water sources needed for the city's use were outside the established boundaries.

Though not stated in the council records, the memorial drafted by Brent and presented to the board on 21 January 1852 requested an area of authority of nine square miles, more than double what the city currently embraced.  With Foster's sponsorship, the legislature did amend the incorporation act on 1 May so that the city's control resided throughout the area of the original limits under Spanish fiat, provided that a majority of electors within that area signed a petition presented to the County Court.  That court had to adhere to the statute governing the incorporation of cities in the state.  It was not, though, until 1855 that County Judge Kimball H. Dimmick ordered the city's boundaries set to the original pueblo standards and a new map drawn to reflect this.

In 1859, the legislature approved an act extending the city's boundaries to a maximum of 1500 yards on any side and that August the southern boundary was extended 400 yards southerly.  After that, there was no change until 1874 when the boundaries were enlarged by legislation to roughly 5 miles in every direction in the form of a rectangle that was longer north and south.

In the meantime, the federal act concerning California land grants issued under Spain and Mexico and passed on 3 March 1851, led the common council to request the city attorney, former council member Brent, to submit an application to the Board of Land Commissioners formed to hear claims for sixteen square leagues.  This area was large enough that Brent's application was written so that, should the sixteen square leagues, based on a radial line of two leagues from a cardinal point at the Old Plaza Church, extend to the Mission San Gabriel, the request would adjust the proposed limits in a westerly direction to make up for the affected amount of land!

On 26 October 1852, as the board held its only hearing in Los Angeles (the rest of the time it met in San Francisco), the application was submitted.  As was typical, a decision was not rendered until February 1856, when the board rejected the sixteen league claim, confirming the city's limits at the four square leagues created under Spain.  The city appealed to the federal district court, but this was rejected.

A detail of the 1858 Hancock survey of Los Angeles, from Maps and Surveys of the Pueblo Lands of Los Angeles by Neal Harlow,.

Consequently, Henry Hancock completed a survey in 1858 that reflected the land claims decision and a patent was finally issued by President Andrew Johnson in 1866.  However, the federal General Land Office determined the patent was invalid because the Hancock survey did not meet federal statutory standards for patents.  Another patent was then issued by President Grant in 1875.  In June 1876, the common council rejected the Grant patent, claiming the Johnson one was correct.  An 1878 lawsuit determined at the state supreme court confirmed that the 1866 patent was the valid one and it was recorded by the city clerk.  In subsequent decades, the City of Los Angeles grew dramatically, so that its area is the twelfth largest in the United States.

Another resolution soon followed the one about the city's area of authority and dealt with its lack of real power to deal with crime.  Brent and council member John O. Wheeler asked the council on 9 February to approve a resoltuion asking General Ethan A. Hitchcock, commander of the Army's Pacific Divsion, to trasnfer one or two companies of infancy "as near as possible to this City, for the purpose of helping, as occasion may arise, in the preservation of good order."  This was duly approved.

Notably, Brent was the recipient of an inadvertent assist from Army troops in April 1851 when he was the defense attorney for two Lugo brothers charged in the murder of two men and jailed. A gang of bandits arrived from northern California and hatched a scheme to extort money from the Lugo family by freeing the brothers from custody.

When the Lugos rejected the offer, the bandits threatened to abduct the brothers after a bail hearing.  Brent, according to his later accounting of the incident, tried to arrange a defense and was astonished when a squadron of troops happened to march into town just as the hearing was about to begin.  With the Army as support, the brothers were escorted to jail without incident.  If this incident is as Brent described, it might explain his request with Wheeler a year later.  More, by the way, on the Lugo case is to be presented on this blog very soon.

On 6 March, council secretary William G. Dryden informed the council that the approved memorial was sent to the general, but is not known if Hitchcock responded or if any troops were sent to Los Angeles.  A decade later, when the Civil War broke out, however, the federal presence in the Los Angeles area was a whole different matter as troops were stationed in several areas, notable Camp Drum near the harbor at Wilmington, due to the overwhelming Confederate sympathies manifested in the region.

Meanwhile, Marshall William Reader found himself at odds with the council, though not directly over matters of criminal justice.  Instead, the issue was in the cleaning of city street, which was to be done by prisoners held by the city in jail.  When Reader submitted a bill in May for $150 to cover three months of work, the council ordered it referred back to the Police Committee, composed of attorney Myron Norton and Antonio Franco Coronel, for reconsideration "in the light of the opinions advanced during debate and of the contract itself."

When Norton and Coronel reported back at the 15 May meeting, they stated "they they had ascertained that the Marshal had failed to clean the streets and is consequently not entited to receive" any money as claimed, although the pair then did state that "some of the work had been done."  Coronel proposed that Reader receive half the amount "to indemnify him for what work he did so, and it was so ordered."

On 3 June, board president Manuel Requena proposed that the contract paying Reader $50 a month for street cleaning be canceled because citizens were, by ordinance, required to clean in front of their houses, and the mayor, then John G. Nichols, was to enforce the ordinance.  When Reader submitted his latest claim, it was rejected as lacking (presumably, the work was not done or was poorly.)  Twelve days later, Reader resigned and George Bachelder was appointed in his stead by Nichols.  Bachelder was then elected to the position on 18 August with the porch of the home of Ygnacio del Valle being the polling place.

The need for a dedicated jail occupied the council for much of the year.  On 3 June, council member and future governor John G. Downey asked what the city's rights were respecting the existing jail shared with the county.  Myron Norton then stated that Mayor Nichols implored the council the consider "the urgent necessity of providing the City with a Jail."  Norton then proposed that Nicols "be authorized to secure and equip a room which shall serve as a Jail under the care of the Marshal."

On the 15th, Nichols submitted a report that "he had secured two rooms, at a rental of fifteen dollars per month each, for use as a Jail."  The council readily assented to this with the provision that it was "reserving itself the benefit of any reduction of the rental should occasion arise."  For a city constantly on the edge of financial want, these kinds of statements were essential.

Articles from the 7 August 1852 edition of the Los Angeles Star regarding two matters discussed by the town's Common Council.  The first was for a new jail, which the article notes the construction of which was let out to J.D, Hunter (he did not complete the project, however).  The other was about a new property tax of 25 cents for every $100 of property, 20% of which was to go to the Jail Fund.

Wanting something better than existing adobe buildings of generally poor quality for the purpose, the council, on 2 August, heard a motion to institute a property tax of 50 cents for every $100 of value and "twenty per centum of the amount thus collected shall be set aside to form a fund for the construction of a City Jail."  Six members were present and it was split with half voting for the suggested rate and the other wanting 25 cents per $100, rather than 50.  Council member Mathew Keller proposed a compromise of 37 1/2 cents and this was referred to the Finance Committee.

At a special meeting the following day, the committe suggested a vote for either the Keller proposal or the 25 cents per $100 suggestion and, with seven members present, the vote was 4-3 to go with the lower amount.  Clearly, council members were concerned with imposition of taxes and, probably, their prospects at the next election.

On 7 August, Mayor Nichols reported "that the City has no premises that could be used as a jail," evidently his previous location did not pan out, "and it was accordingly resolved that the rooms in Mr. John Temple's house, which appeared suitable for that purpose, be engaged." Temple, who was the second Anglo to settle in Los Angeles, owned a home south of the Plaza on Main Street, and was frequently involved in civic matters, including the loan of the money to pay for the first survey of Los Angeles, done by Lt. Edward O.C. Ord in 1849, and, in 1859, built a two-story brick building that was leased two years later to the city and county for a courthouse and municipal and county offices.

In conjunction with the county, the city hired J.D. Hunter, to build a 30'x15'  two-story, with the lower story to be of stone and the second, consisting of the jailer's [this was also the town's marshal] residence to be adobe.  The $7000 cost was to be split among the two entities and the structure was to be finished by the end of the year.  Unfortunately, the project was not completed and it was another two years before a jail was built, as noted in previous posts.

Finally, the question of dealing with public disturbances occupied some considerable time in the summer.  At the 12 August meeting, the minutes stated that

It having come to the knowledge of the Council that excesses are being committed at the 'Maromas' or tight rope performances, subversive of public morals, and, furthermore, several citizens having complained of the noise caused by said shows which penetrates the neighborhood for a great distance, and considering the danger of a cruel epidemic, threatening to invade the country, which would be fed by late hours and excesses, Council resolved that the Mayor be invited to abate these abuses, prohibiting the beating of drums before and during the performances and not allowing them to continue after eleven o'clock at night, or by resorting to other measures which his prudence may suggest.

A maroma traditionally has been a one-man performance practiced in rural Mexico that included acrobatics, including tricks with tight ropes, but there seems to have been a variation here in Los Angeles involving enthusiastic accompaniment by drumming and, perhaps more public display, creating, at least for sme, a nuisance.

Notably, though, this statement was signed, not just by council member Downey, but also by Coronel and Requena, suggesting that the concern was not necessarily ethnic.

At the 22 September meeting, the minutes contained a statement that "having been informed of the abuses which to the detriment of good order are being committed by Indians when arresting other Indians who are disorderly," the council asked Mayor Nichols to attend to the situation, as well as "to prevent that the Indians put under arrest by the Marshal" were not treated with abuse.

It is worth pointing out here that there was an Indian alcalde who had jurisdiction in arresting Indians caught committing crimes, but also that in early 1853, Nichols was tried by the District Court on a charge of "misconduct in office" for the way Indians were treated, though, the matter was dismissed because there was no provision in state law for the alleged misconduct.

This article from the 16 November 1852 issue of the Star concerns the recently completed session of the Board of Land Commissioners in Los Angeles, where it heard land grant claims, including that of the city of Los Angeles.

While, generally, city and county prisoners held at the jail were available, in lieu of fines, for hiring out as free (some would say, slave) labor to farmers and ranchers, Coronel, who was tasked to report on the state of the city's zanjas, or ditches supplying the town with water from the Los Angeles River, proposed at the 5 November meeting "that all city prisoners available next Monday, shall be put to work on the ditch by the Mayor, provided the punishment is not disproportioned to the offense committed and that it lasts as long as they work."

One more little tidbit closes out this entry.  At the 17 December meeting, the council received a petition from a new resident who desired to open a school for instruction in English.  It should be noted that public schools were a couple of years away from creation and any education was conducted by private tutors or, on occasion, a small school.  There were two mentioned in the minutes for this meeting, one conducted by the priest at the Old Plaza Church and another by council member Coronel.

The new petitioner was an immigrant from Arkansas and a native of North Carolina named Alveron S. Beard, who was mentioned in some detail in an earlier post concerning the writings of Horace Bell.  The council, at this meeting, voted to hire him at $35 per month for the express purpose of teaching poor children, many of whom were to be designated by the council.  Once this was decided upon, Coronel recommended the creation of a schools committee and Downey and del Valle were named to serve.

As for Beard, more about him in a later post concerning his checkered career as city marshal.

The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1851, Part Two

As noted in a previous post here, there was an effort to create an official police force in Los Angeles in fall 1850, proposed by common [city] council member Morris Goodman.  That version, however, would have involved paid officers and the proposal fell flat, probably because the city simply lacked the funds to hire any employees.  Most of the town's income came from business licenses, but collecting these fees turned out to be a significant problem in many cases.

Still, with crime running high in Gold Rush-era Los Angeles, something needed to be done, so Mayor Benjamin D. Wilson revived the idea of a dedicated police force, albeit unpaid, at a council meeting of 12 July 1851, observing that the purpose was to preserve order that "he feared might be disturbed: otherwise.  Wilson alerted the council that Dr. Alexander W. Hope, who'd resigned as a council member at the beginning of the year, had offered his services in leading the force and the mayor recommended appointing Hope as chief.

There was quite a bit of discussion according to the meeting's minutes, after which council member Agustín Olvera proposed that Hope be appointed the chief of a volunteer force.  Olvera suggested that Hope and Manuel Requena set about organizing the force and appointing what were referred to as "subaltern officers."   This is an unusual reference, given that the use of the term "subaltern" was from the British military and identified a junior officer.  It can, however, also denote anyone in a subordinate position.

In any case, the council agreed to Olvera's recommendations and ordered that "it shall be the sole duty of the Police to watch over the security of the inhabitants and the preservation of peace, in confirmity with the Laws of the State" as well as the town's recently enacted ordinances.

Six days later, on 18 July, a special meeting of the council was held with Chief Hope offering suggestions on the organization of the force, presumably after his discussions with Requena.  Among these was that there needed to be some distinguishing mark for officers, with the result that the council approved the idea of a ribbon in English and Spanish that read: "City Police, organized by the Common Council of Los Angeles, Jly 12th 1851."  On the 23rd, the council approved the printing of 100 white ribbons as badges.

Requena also suggested that the council approve some location for the force to meet and store its armaments, basically a station house, and recommneded that Mayor Wilson and County Judge Olvera should arrange for the county court house as the locale and the county's armaments to be available to the force for their use.  A committee of council members Stephen C. Foster and John O. Wheeler was appointed as to oversee the force's operations along with Hope.

A letter to the editor of the new weekly newspaper, the Los Angeles Star, 9 August 1851, about the recently created volunteer police force and its actions in an incident involving piblic disorder at a local dance.

A letter from "ORDER"  in the 16 August 1851 edition of the newly launched weekly newspaper, the Los Angeles Star, addresed the creation of the volunteer police force.  The writer stated that officers "be required at all times when on duty, to be armed and be instructed carefully as to what rights they have in case of resistance" as well as "clear and positive orders as to the disposal they can make of a prisoner when arrested."

An example was cited of an arrest, possibly for public intoxication, but, the writer admonished the force because "they let a prisoner go on  promise to retire to his home, without any arms then upon him."  Evidently, however, the same volunteer officers "found him in twnety minutes afterwards, with a six-shooter, 'spreading himself' to the terror of one of the prettiest and quietest balls I have ever seen in this town."  Finally, the writer went on, "it was with no little difficulty that he was finally persuaded to deliver his pistol, and submit."

This event demonstrated, then, that "the police must not relax any of the vigor with which they stated out."  Otherwise, "ORDER" contined, "a fatal result came very near being necessary . . . solely for want of firmnes at the outset."  His final comment simply was

This 'six-shooter' business must be kept in check—especially at the festivities of the people of the country.

Notably, on the same date the article occurred, Marshal Alexander Gibson resigned, though whether it had anything to do with the chaos at the dance or more with his reduced duties due to the creation of the volunteer police force is not known.  The council then appointed William Reader marshal pro tem, pending an election in early September.

That contest pitted Reader against a recent arrival in town, a young Texan named David Brown whose background was probably unknown to most Angelenos.  Brown had been serving as an unpaid deputy marshal for short stints when he ran against Reader in the campaign for marshal, but the final tally was a landslide, with all of 103 voters casting their ballots!  Reader came out on top 83-20.

As for Brown, Los Angeles residents would become all-too-familiar with his frequent scrapes with the law relative to gambling, fighting and, ultimately, murder when, in fall 1854, he killed a man at a livery stable.  Brown was convicted in the murder and sentenced to hang, but his attorneys secured a stay of execution from the state supreme court on the allegation that public sentiment was prejudicial to a fair trial.  This assertion proved to be spot on as Brown was lynched by an enraged crowd baying for his blood in early January 1855.  More on that notable event later in a post on this blog.

There was another interesting criminal justice question that came before the council in September, when Olvera, who, again, was both county judge and council member, stated that he believed the city ordinance with respect to selling liquor to Indians was in conflict with state law.

The town's ordinance of 1850 generally prohibited sales of liquor beyond a certain hour (8 or 9 p.m. depending on the season), but was then amended on 21 May 1851 with an addition that liquor sales to natives was banned, with a jail term of five days and a fine of $20 to be imposed at the discretion of the Mayor, who presided over these infractions.

However, the state's "An Act for the Government and Protection of Indians," passed in April 1850 included, in its fifteenth section, the prohibition of selling, giving or furnishing any liquor, with a minimum sentence of 5 days in jail and a minimum fine of $20 to be imposed or both.  Olvera's concern appears to revolve around the fact that the city ordinance established a set fine and jail term, whereas the state created a minimum, but allowed for the imposition of a longer sentence and larger fine.  Whether the issue of having the mayor apply his discretion to local cases was a problem for Olvera is not known.

Requena then requested the city attorney, William G. Dryden (who succeeded Benjamin Hayes), to offer his opinion.  Dryden, who was admitted to the bar in 1850, but does not appear to have had any formal training in the law, and who was a county judge from 1856-1869, stated that the city was an independent authority and that the ordinance was in accord with state law.  With this in mind, the council voted to let the ordinance stand, but Olvera abstained, clearly believing this to not be the case.  Yet, on 25 September, Requena had some second thoughts about his vote, because he requested that the state supreme court be consulted as to the question of compliance of the local ordinance with statute.  It is not known, however, if a consultation was ever held on the matter.

Also at this meeting, Alexander Hope resigned as police chief, for reasons unstated, and the council, on Mayor Wilson's recommendation, appointed William T.B. Sanford to the vacated position.  Sanford, notably, then asked the council to allow him to utilize Marshal Reader's services as needed.

Council president David W. Alexander also resigned, because he was leaving the state with his friend, San Gabriel Valley rancher William Workman, to travel to the United Kingdom (Alexander was from Ireland and Workman from northern England).  Requena, previous council president, was then reappointed to that position.  After a special election a couple of weeks later, newly arrived attorney Joseph Lancaster Brent was elected to replace Alexander on the council.

Another major issue of 1851 was the major conflicts between the Indians of southern California, especially in the areas south and east of Los Angeles between San Diego and the Colorado River with Chief Antonio Garra battling militias, including one led by Joshua Bean, who soon after settled in San Gabriel and operated a saloon next to the old mission church.  More on Bean later in this blog, but the warring was of such concern to the common council that, a special meeting was held on 27 November to addres the question.

The anxiety was that rumors of an Indian invasion of Los Angeles were mounting--hardly surprising among a community already on edge about rampant crime at the height of the Gold Rush.  During the council's deliberations, there was a call, from unknown parties, for the mounting of a cannon and the stocking of 50 lances for protection.  The idea of having lances makes it seem all but certain that the suggestion came from one of the Californio members of the council, either Requena or Olvera.  Brent then suggested that a loan be obtained to pay for any defense of the town, because there wasn't, naturally, enough in the meager treasury.  Someone recommended that $500 be borrowed, but Olvera wisely observed that this should only be sought if needed.  This became a motion which the council readily approved.

The last major piece of criminal justice business addressed by the council in 1851 was the drafting of further ordinances, including the prohibition of firing guns after dark or inside homes at any time (!) with sentences including up to five days in jail and fines ranging from $5 to 50.  All such fines were to go to the Police Fund, supporting the voluntary police force.

The problem of raising funds for support of town services was also shown in the decision to change the licensing of gambling houses so that gaming table fees were cut from $100 per table per month to only $25.  This may have been a reflection of the inability of the marshal to collect fees, the propensity of proprietors to disguise their tables, and the need to find some way to establish a reasonable structure so that actual revenue could be derived from this obviously plentiful potential source of monies for the treasury.