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.

Early Los Angeles Jails: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, 1858-1861

It is interesting to see that, as the 1850s closed and the next decade dawned, the condition of the county and city jail facility varied somewhat considerably over a several-year period.

The Grand Jury report, as reprinted in El Clamor Público, 17 July 1858.

El Clamor Público, for example, reprinted the report of the Grand Jury in its 17 July 1858 edition, with foreman F.P.F. Temple, stating,

El Gran Jurado ha visitado y examinado la Carcel del Condado, y encuentra que bajo al manejo del actual carcelero se suplen todas las necesidades de los prisioneros, y se pone la atencion debida al aseo y ventilacion de la carcel.

The Grand Jury has visited and examined the County Jail, and found that under the management of the jailer, all the necessities of the prisoners have been provided and he has given the necessary attention for the cleanliness and ventilation of the jail.

In late winter 1859, another Grand Jury report was issued and reproduced both by El Clamor Público and the Los Angeles Star with William H. Peterson, a former deputy sheriff, serving as foreman.  While Peterson wrote a scathing indictment of the "Indian alcade system," referred to in a previous post in this blog concerning the use of Indians arrested for drunkenness for servile labor, noting that it was "daily productive of evil and deserving of unqualified condemnation," he was highly complimentary when it came to the jail.

Peterson wrote that "an inspection of the jail affords satisfactory evidences of the efficiency of the gentleman in charge—Mr. Mitchell; and that due regard is paid to the cleanliness and good order of the prison and the health and security of its inmates."

In late November, another Grand Jury report found matters were generally well under the management of new jailer, Francis Carpenter, observing, as reprinted in the 26 November edition of the Star that they "find the prison and all the cells in a clean and healthy condition."  Carpenter, the report went on, "deserves great credit for the good order and management manifested by him, in the whole and every portion of said jail."

The Los Angeles Star reprinting of the report of the Grand Jury in its 26 November 1859 edition.

Interestingly, this report featured an element not generally found in others, the apparent interviewing of incarcerated prisoners as part of the review.  The report stated that "nor do we find any complaint whatever from those confirned therein. of the management or the treatment of the jailer."  It concluded by noting that "the prison yard is in good and cleanly order; and with two exceptions only, we find everything satisfactory. amd requiring no particular alteration or improvement.

The main exception was that

There is on the main upper room of the prison, a prisoner affected with a loathsome disease, from whence proceeds a stench which is almost intolerable.  The other persons confined in that part of the prison, are now obliged to be in contact with this intolerable nuisance, and, we believe, the dangerous effluvia proceeding from the disease.  These persons are human beings, and we think should not be thus exposed to such nuisances; we therefore recomment that the diseased man should be at once removed.

The Star of 10 March 1860 featured another Grand Jury report showed that there were some further concerns amidst general satifaction.  Foreman O.P. Passons [listed as Parsons] wrote that the condition of the facility "is deserving of approval", but went on to "suggest that additional whitewashing and ventilation woulkd contribute greatly to the promotion of the health of the inmates, and relieve the jailor from much labor which the want of these renders necessary."

More specifically, the jury exhibited its concerns regarding, "the want of conveniences, too, for the imperative calls of nature" and requested the Board of Supervisors to do something "whereby this serious deficiency may be obviated."

Yet, in the July report, the jury merely stated that "they have . . . visited the county jail, and found the same cleanly, and in good condition."  Two months later, another jury was equally sanguine, reporting that it was "clean, in good order, and well kept."  By these very terse reports, it would seem that at least some of the concerns of the November and March reports were dealt with.

Except that the November 1860 Grand Jury not only deviated from these, but great expanded upon the statements of its predecessory from exactly a year prior.  Foreman J.F. Stephens reported, as reprinted in the 24 November issue, that

After proper examination it was with regret that we had much to condemn.  The several apartments were in very bad condition; emitting from heaps of filth that had been sufferent to accumulate, a most unwholesome and offensive stench.  The sick prisoners, of whom there are two, complain of a lack of proper medical attendance and suitable food.  We deem it highly important that the entire premises should be immediately cleansed and precautions taken to insure greater cleanliness for the future.

Taking the jailer to task because of "absence, negligence and incapacity," the jurors went on to note that "several persons, committed for petty offences, were detained some weeks after their term of sentence had expired."  Yet, there was another prisoner who was sentenced to six months and a $30 fine, but "was discharged by the jailor, without authority, after three days of imprisonment.  Then, there was an Indian who was held on "some undefined charge, and suffered to remain over two months, without examination or commitment."

A very critical Grand Jury report, published in the Star, 24 November 1860.

Also of note was the fact that "prisoners were frequently put in and taken out of jail by the township officers [from outlying areas of the county], without the knowledge of the person in charge."

Given these issues, the jury recommended that "the general condition of the jail, no less than the safekeeping of the prisoners, imperatively demands a thorough change in the management and direction to all things relating to the county prison."

The 9 March 1861 edition of the Star reprinted the Grand Jury report, as subscribed by foreman George W. Gift, and the only problem cited with the jail had to do with "some repairs [to] be had upon the wall surrounding it," otherwise the jury felt that "in all other respects, our visit to the Jail was satisfactory."

Yet, Gift noted something with respect to the fact that "a very great evil exists in the present mode of administering justice to the Indian petty criminals who are convicted before the Justices of the Peace throughout the county."  Specifically citing the statute dealing with "the government and protection of Indians in this state," Gift observed that punishments for the petty theft required uo to twenty-five lashes.  Not only was "this mode of punishment . . . very seldom resorted to," but that "our prisons are burdened with this class of criminals, at a very great expense to the county."

Beyond that, it was claimed in the report, "the Indians themselves, it may be said, hardly consider imprisonment, coupled with good board, a punishment; but, on the contrary, deem it a reward."  Consequently, this section concluded,

We say, whip the Indians at once, and stop that expense of their keeping in the County Jail.

Matters worsened in the next report, as detailed in the 13 July issue of the Star.  Foreman J.J. Warner's statement echoed that of the November 1860 report in that there were several examples of prisoners confined because of a lack of due process.  In one instance, a prisoner was in the jail for over a month without an examination before a judge and the jury determined that the matter lacked "any inquiry or proof of malice on the part of the accused."  In addition to the wrong of having the individual confined for weeks without reason, there as also the fact that "the county [was] made chargeable with his support and the costs arising from the commitment."

Another notable situation involved a grand larceny suspect already serving a sentence for petty larceny, which involved his being sent out as a laborer on a nearby ranch or farm, from which he escaped.  It was another six months before his recapture, by which time the sole witness in the grand larceny matter had left the area.  Then, although his petty larceny sentence expired, the man "still is in jail, without any proceedings, having taken place in his case.

Other examples were cited of cases dealing with the charge of assaults with deadly weapons, yet all lacked "sufficient evidence to warrant the finding of [true] bills" while "the accused have been for periods of greater or less duration in prison."  With these matters involving "a serious wrong," the jury noted that, in examples of innocence, "great injustice is done to the individual," while, for the guilty, "the accused only becomes more hardened and depraved through his incarceration, without the ends of the ends of justice being attained."  Moreover, these imprisonments meant that "the county has been unnecesarily unburdened with expense."

Then, there was the condition of the jail.  The jurors noted that

we found the rooms of the prison filled with a foul and disagreeable atmosphere.  The walls of the rooms are yellow and discolored by noxious vapors.  From an unpardonable neglect, the conducting pipes from a water closet used by a large proportion of the inmates of the prison, had been suffered to remain in a leaky condition until the floor of the room became saturated.

Despite some repairs involving the covering of the water closet floor with metal, "the atmosphere of the prison . . . was highly impregnated with a most offensive and unhealthy effluvia."  For reasons of comfort, health, economizing "and the reputation of the county," it was recommended that "a much higher degree of cleanliness" be employed throughout the facility, which was only cleaned every eight days.  Considering the size of the spaces, the number of prisoners and the infrequency of cleaning, it was evident to the jury that "the rooms must become prejudicial to the health of those confined therein."

A particularly visceral report from the Grand Jury, from the Star's issue of 13 July 1861.

Moreover, the report continued, "the prisoners in the jail complain of the quality and quantity of the food furnished them, and the infrequency of their meals."  Morning rations included just "a cup of unpalatable coffee" and "a small piece of bread."  The noon meal consisted of "a pint of vegetable soup and also meat, but that the latter from its quality and want of cleanliness and care in cooking, is objectionable."  Remarkably, a full 19 hours passed before the morning meal was provided.  Sheriff Tomás Sanchez told the jury that, on this latter point, "he was guided by the advice of the visiting physician."

Less than two weeks later, in the 24 July 1861 edition of the Los Angeles News, another problem was reported "in regard to the criminal looseness and carelessness with which our county jail is conducted."  Siriaco Arza, awaiting trial for murder, "was discovered by an officer in the street, and at liberty."  Another inmate, under a five-month sentence, was discovered missing.  A police officer "heard of his whereabouts, and informed the jailor, inquiring what reward would be paid for his capture."  The reply was that, because the man had served two months for the petty offense, "that was sufficient," meaning he did not need to be retaken and returned to jail.

Outraged, the News demanded that "this matter should be thoroughly investigated," stating that "it is not thus that our county jail, where some of the worst criminals are sometimes confined, should be managed."  Sheriff Sanchez, who appointed the jailer, was responsible for the problem and "is highly censurable for appointing a man so unfit and irresponsible."  The paper insisted that "the investigation into the affairs of the prison should be severe, and those persons who are guilty ought to be severely punished."

By 1861, the county was in some desperate financial straits, as the end of the Gold Rush, a glut in the cattle market which formed the region's economic backbone, the depression of 1857 and other factors were at play.  Taxpayers were loath, even in flush times, to pay for even the most basic of amenities.  Finally, it appears that jail conditions were also heavily dependent on the good offices of the county sheriff and his appointed jailer.

Generally, matters appeared to have improved after the early 1860s, but there seems little question that, for extended periods, the jail was poorly managed and maintained for much of the 1850s and first part of the following decade.

Early Los Angeles Jails: New and Unimproved, 1854-1858

The Los Angeles city and county jail built in 1853-54 in the courtyard of the Rocha Adobe, which also served as the county courthouse, might have been new, but it wasn't long before its defects became public.

The Southern Californian newspaper, a new journal, reprinted a report of the Grand Jury in its 16 November 1854, in which it stated that the jail was filthy and was in desperate need of cleaning.

A colorful and ironic description from the Southern Californian about the Los Angeles city jail, 1 March 1855.  Click on any image to see them in enlarged views in a new window.

The 1 March 1855 edition of the Southern Californian reported, in its inimitable style, that, in the midst of heavy rains, prisoners at the city portion of the jail on the first floor were not out doing public works in the chain gang and remained confined, so,

scorning to squander their time in ignoble activity, and perhaps believing that a more thorough ventilation of their boarding house, would add to its attractions, proceeded on the night of the 22nd, to excavate a neat opening in the wall, something over a foot square, through which upon second thought they concluded to take French leave, and at last accounts had not returned.

Mayor Stephen C. Foster, then, according to this account, "not appreciating the ventilation system . . . proceeded to close up the hole, in the usual style of fastening the stable after the colts are stolen."  The paper noted that, "very fortunately the county criminals were confined in the upper story, and had no opportunity of participating in the closing excercises of the Anniversary, so dear to the sons of freedom," this last reference being to Washington's birthday.

A little over a year later, another unsavory aspect of the jail came to light when the Star, on 17 May 1856, reported that county prisoner José Dominguez, died in the facility, becoming the second such case recently.  Dominguez, who was found guilty of Grand Larceny in the District Court in early January, was sentenced to five months' imprisonment, so it appears he was only a couple of weeks away from release when he died of "bilious fever."  The paper observed that

it is quite certain that our jail is not a suitable place for a man who is very sick.  There should be a room built in connection with it for sick persons: this is required for humanity's sake.  The laws contemplrate punishment—this is most true; but not slow torture to death.

The death of county prisoner José Dominguez as reported in the Star, 17 May 1856.

The Star added that there was an unnamed German prisoner who "was mercifully removed from the jail to a proper place, and thus only [italics original] recovered; let us have the same rule as to all classes of prisoners."

Another year-and-a-half went by before news of the jail's condition were discussed, but this time it was to report a rare example of improvement.  The Star of 14 November 1857 noted that "a great improvement has also been made in the County Buildings.  A brick pavement has been laid down in front, a substantial fence put up, and the court-house and jail, with the public offices, thoroughly repaired and cleaned."

Two months later, in its 30 January 1858 edition, the paper's editor, Henry Hamilton, visited the jail and was given a tour by jailer Joseph H. Smith.  Hamilton noted the recent changes, noting that "the yard is neat and clean" and added that shrubs were planted "which will prove ornamental and tend to relieve the harsh outline incidental to the narrow enclosure" of the adobe.

Hamilton went on to give the most detailed description we have of the jail, observing that the first floor section for the city had two rooms for the separation of men and women, with "the occupants of the latter, we need scarcely say, being of the 'bow and arrow' tribe."  There were, however, no beds and inmates "may select a soft spot in the earthen floor to sleep off a 'drunk," although "the jailer does his duty in keeping the apartments clean."

As for the county jail on the second floor, matters were quite different, including its security.  Hamilton stated that "the joists which support the floor are traversed with strong iron bars throughout, about six inches apart.  Over these is laid down thick planking, then a covering of sheet iron, and over all plank again, forming a floor which it would be impossible to cut through without detection."

Noting that this space was "well ventilated," Hamilton stated that there were six cells in the large room, but that they were deficient in not being as airy.  As for their strength, "the partitions are made of heavy timber, well secured by iron cramps [clamps?].  The doors are massive iron gratings.  Altogether, the great necessity of strength and security is thoroughly attained—such a thing as a prisoner making his escape being almost, we should say, an impossibility."

Smith was given high praise by the Star's publisher for making many improvements and "at his own cost in many cases, [he has been] exceeding the stipend allowed for their [the prisoners'] maintenance."  It was said that the cells were inspected twice daily "and the apartments are kept scrupulously clean."

The 30 January 1858 issue of the Star features the best-known description of the Los Angeles city and county jail.

After noting that there were six prisoners in confinement, including three for capital offenses, Hamilton reported that "they are secured by strong shackles on each leg, the chains being fastened to iron staples piercing the floor and clamping the joists underneath."  This was a more updated and humane method than the log on the floor of the old adobe jail described in a previous post.

Despite further praise for Smith who was denoted "an active and efficient officer," the paper concluded that

we consider the prison building, however, unfit for the purpose for which it is used, although, under present circumstances, it would not be advisable to incur the expense of erecting a suitable one.

This appears to refer to the depressed local economy, affected by the end of the Gold Rush, the glut in the cattle market, and the national depression of 1857.  Other posts on this blog have noted the difficulty, during the same period, in getting funds to build a court house, so the idea of securing a better jail was not in the offing.

More disturbing and warranting action by the Board of Supervisors, was that

the great defect in the cells is the want of light and ventilation.  To be confined in one of these dungeons in hot weather must itself be a torture.  There is a defect in the management, and a serious one, which we may notice here—it is, the want of clothing for the prisoners.  Men are committed to prison, and kept there for months, who have no change of clothing.

In its 13 February 1858 edition, El Clamor Público discussed the poor condition of the Rocha Adobe as the county building by stating that "the jail is a better space than this."

In fact, the 13 February 1858 issue of El Clamor Público, in criticizing the condition of the Rocha Adobe as "dilapidated" and "deteriorated" and noting that the county needed a court house befitting the name, stated that "la cárcel es una casa mucho mejor que esta [the jail is a much better place than this]."

As bad as these conditions were, it only got worse as the early sixties dawned--this is the subject of the next post!

Early Los Angeles Jails: Building a City and County Jail, 1850-1854

The cuartel, or jail, on the hill overlooking the Plaza and which was built in 1841 lasted a little over a decade before Los Angeles officials decided it was time to build a new facility.

As soon as the new systems of government were created under American rule in mid-1850, the town's Common [City] Council began discussing the feasibility of having a new jail.  The council's meeting of 20 July, for example, included a report by members Jonathan Temple and Julián Chavez recommending that the county be given a plot of land, selected by the city, for the jail, on the condition that the city had use of the property if it could not secure its own jail facility, but that there would be no charges to the city for anything other than prisoner maintenance.

In regards to the request of the Court of Sessions, which consisted of County Judge Agustín Olvera and two associate justices from the outlying townships and which then was the governing body for the county before the Board of Supervisors was created in 1852, for $2000 for a loan towards a jail, the council sent its regrets that it could not provide the money.

After David W. Alexander, a future sheriff, and Francis Mellus conducted repairs on the jail on the hill in early 1851, Juan Domingo, who was actually John Gröningen, a Swede, submitted an offer in May to rent his adobe for city jail purposes, but he was, instead, referred to the county through the Court of Sessions.  Following this, the Court requested a donation by the city for one or more lots on which to build a new jail.  Council members Stephen C. Foster, a future mayor, and Manuel Requena were appointed a committee to find a suitable property  In early July, the pair reported that the court should assist them in this work.

On 23 July, the jail committee of Foster and Requena informed the board that they had located a property on Spring Street and recommended issuing title to the county without any city responsibility to the lots.

Another year went by, however, before any further action on a jail was initiated.  In early June 1852, the new mayor, John G. Nichols, reported on "the urgent necessity of providing the City with a jail" and council member Myron Norton proposed that Nichols "be authorized to secure and equip a room which shall serve as a Jail under the care of the Marshal."  Norton's motion, however, was "laid over"
to the next meeting.

On 15 June, Nichols informed the council that "he had secured two rooms, at a rental of fifteen dollars per month each, for use as a Jail."  The council approved, but only with a provision that it was "reserving itself the benefit of any reduction of the rental should occasion arise."  The property was that of the same Juan Domingo (Gröningen) mentioned above.

A month or so later, in the 10 July 1852 edition of the Los Angeles Star, the report of the Grand Jury, as represented by its foreperson, merchant and rancher Jonathan Temple, had this to say about the cuartel:

the present building now "intended" as a prison or jail is insecure and totally unfit for the purposes for which it is used; first, because of insecurity; and secondly, because there is not a sufficient number of rooms belonging to the same to make that distinction in the confinement of prisoners to which their sex, the grades of their crimes, and the law entitle them.  They [the Grand Jury] would, therefore, present the same, together with the room at present occupied by the city as a prison, as public nuisances, which should be abated forthwith.

In early August, the council heard a motion for a property tax levy of 50 cents for every $100 in property, an effective rate of 1/2 of 1 %.  Of this, 20%, or 10 cents, "shall be set aside to form a fund for the construction of a City Jail."  After some spirited discussion, the council voted 4-3 to approve a levy of 25 cents, which meant that 5 cents of every $100 would go into the Jail Fund.

Mayor Nichols then noted "that the City has no premises that could be used as a jail, and it was accordingly resolved that the rooms in Mr. John Temple's house, which appeared suitable for that purpose, be engaged."  Was it a concidence that Temple's scathing report as the foreperson of the Grand Jury was followed within weeks by Nichols' announcement of a deal to rent from Temple?

In any case, this decision to relocate to Temple's home appears to have been abrogated, as rent was being paid in early 1853 to Francisco and Javier Alvarado for "sixteen dollars for rent of the two rooms used by Council as a Jail".

New mayor Antonio Franco Coronel, in his first message to the city on 13 May 1853 referred to the rental of the jail and council chamber from the Alvarados and pointed out the "importance of owning a building which would serve those purposes" and would not only "fill a long felt want," but had the added benefit of saving money, "more particularly if in its construction the transgressors of the municipal ordinances were employes 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."

From that point onward, it was decided that the council would work directly with the recently-created county Board of Supervisors to achieve the goal of having a new jail.

Early in that body's history, in July 1852, the supervisors approved an ad in the Los Angeles Star for proposals for the construction of a county jail, with the terms being half of the amount in cash on completion and the other half in the dreaded scrip, a form of an IOU.

This short article from the 7 August 1852 edition of the Los Angeles Star reported on the awarding of  a contract for a new jail to San Bernardino resident J.D. Hunter for $7000.  By the early part of 1853, though, the contract was annulled "by an act of Providence" that was not specified.

The winning bid went to J. D. Hunter, who in late September, presented his bond for the contract and it was ordered by the supervisors that Hunter be paid $3000 in cash up front with $4000 more due on completion in nine months.   The 7 August edition of the Los Angeles Star reported that Hunter, of San Bernardino and who had the first brickyard in Los Angeles, was to build a two-story building of 30' x 15' dimensions.  The first floor walls were to be of stone and three feet thick, while the second story was to be of adobe and constitute the jailor's residence.

It is not clear, however, how far Hunter got in the building of the edifice, as in early January 1853, his contract was annulled because "by an act of Providence [Hunter] is now prevented from proceeding with it."  What the "act of Providence" specifically constituted was not stated, though it was noted "that the locality of said Jail in unsuitable & then plan on which it was to be built [was] not conforming to the requirements of the Law."  This latter was also not specified.  Construction materials obtained by Hunter were, moreover, to be returned to the county.

It was also stated at a supervisor's meeting at that time that the county's debt of some $47,000 was such that it "will not suffice to build a suitable Jail, the imperative necessity of which is felt by all the people of the county."  Some movement was made towards requesting the state legislature to pass a law "authorizing said Board to levy a tax upon all real and personal property in this county not to exceed one dollar upon every one hundred dollars worth of such property for the purpose of building a Jail."

Again, motion stalled until the summer when the supervisors, on 9 July, ordered that "in view of the expense of the Rent of the building at present occupied as the Jail of Los Angeles County, [it was] ordered that the proprietor of said building be warned that the County will not continue to Rent said Building from him after the last day of this month."

This was because, a month later, a contract was presented to the board noting that the county had reached a deal to buy, for $3160, the Rocha Adobe at Spring and Franklin streets from Jonathan Temple for use as the courthouse and the courtyard of the former residence was designated the site for a new jail.  On 9 August, it was ordered "that a County and City Jail be built on the Rocha lot" and a committee of supervisors Stephen C. Foster (who had been working on a city jail while a member of the common council two years prior) and W. T. B. Sanford was appointed to "contract for the materials and Building of said Jail," with the cost not to exceed $6,000.

The city held a $1500 lien on the structure and it was agreed that it would be a half-owner of the property, occupying the first floor of the jail, while the county took the upper story.  Provisions were made for offices for the jailor, while the city agreed to put up $1500 up front and forward $1000 a year from date.  The supervisors also ordered that 10 cents per $100 of taxable property was to go towards a contingent fund to aid in the purchase and building of county structures up to $7,000.

At the 6 October 1853 meeting of the Common Council, Supervisor Foster read a resolution from the county "inviting the city to come in jointly with the County Offices and Jail."  The Council approved a motion to appropriate the $2500 noted above "when the house shall be finished and that portion of the jail belonging to the City  . . . shall have been turned over to the City."

The came something of a shock, when Mayor Coronel reported to the Council that District Court Judge Benjamin Hayes ruled "that the City is not entitled to possess a jail," though further explanation was lacking.  Alarmed, the Council appointed member Henry Myles to meet with the judge "to ascertain the true state of affairs."  Still, on 13 December, the Council's Building Committee reported that $1000 for payment of the city's share of the jail and offices in the Rocha Adobe was ready to forward to Supervisor Sanford.

On 9 January 1854, the same committee had the honor of presenting the deed to the jail and city building to the county.  At last, the city and county of Los Angeles had a new jail expressly built for the purpose.  Soon, however, conditions would be often reported as being less than an adequate improvement over old quarters, as will be discussed in subsequent posts.

Early Los Angeles Jails, 1786-1853

As primitive as the courthouses were in Los Angeles prior to 1861 (covered here in recent posts,) the early jails were, naturally, far worse.

Anyone who saw Comedy Central's recent "Drunk History" episode (a clip of which was presented here last week) on early criminal justice in Los Angeles will remember the short bit about how the town's jail had a log in the center with staples nailed to it, to which prisoners were chained.

While the image in the show was not particularly accurate (the log was, actually, a somewhat finished piece of wood), it is still striking by our modern standards to conceive of these barbaric conditions.

James M. Guinn, in an 1896 article from the Annual Publications of the Historical Society of Southern California, wrote about the first jails in the town.

First, he noted that one dating from 1786, just five years after Los Angeles was established, was originally a cuartel, or guard house for soldiers stationed in the pueblo.  It was a square adobe structure with iron-barred windows and a tiled roof and stood at the southeasterly corner of the Plaza that then existed--the Plaza was moved a few times because of flooding from the Los Angeles River.  Guinn reckoned the location to have been near where Marchessault Street met Upper Main Street, which is about the northwest corner of today's Plaza.  At an unknown date, it was converted into a jail, though he stated that it was often used to house political prisoners during the pueblo's frequent forays into revolution and political strife.  Guinn, in particular, discussed its use during the 1831 ouster of Governor Victoria.

He then observed that, by the late 1830s, the structure "became too dilapidated for prison purposes" so prisoners were housed at the resident of the Plaza Church priest, or at Mission San Gabriel, or, on occasion, shipped to Santa Barbara for confinement.  Guinn noted that the ruins of this cuartel were still in evidence in 1846.

This circa 1872 photograph by Henry T. Payne, taken from an upper floor of the Pico House hotel, looks across the northwest corner of the Plaza toward Wine Street, later Olvera Street at the center, and an adobe building at the corner of Marchessault Street, which runs across the image from left to right and Upper Main Street, which is at the far left.  In this general location was the original jail, said by historian James M. Guinn in an 1896 article to have been constructed in 1786 and used through the 1830s.  In the distance is "Sonoratown" and, further off, the hills where Elysian Park is today.  The photo is courtesy of the Workman and Temple Family Homestead Museum, City of Industry.  Click on the image to see it in an enlarged view in a separate window.

In 1841, a new jail was built on the hill above Calle Primavera or Spring Street.  It was a single-story adobe structure and without any partitioned rooms or cells.  Guinn wrote that, because the adobe would not have prevented escape (though he didn't address this issue with the 1786 building), "a simply yet very effective device" was employed to keep prisoners in place.

This, of course, was the log mentioned above.  According to Guinn, "across the long room extending from wall to wall was placed a heavy pine log.  Into this at intervals of three or four feet were driven iron staples.  To each of these a short chain was attached.  The chains were fastened to the shackles on the prisoner's legs.  Thus each criminal was picketed out like a coopless chicken designed for the ax."  After going on to suggest that some prisoners "like the chicken sometimes got it in the neck, when some vigilance committee delegated to itself the authority to regulate the morals of the town," Guinn made an interesting, and flippant, observation:

Only the gente de razon (people of reason), Americans and Spanish—were allowed to occuy the "Loma Cuartel".  The pariahs of Los Angeles society, the Indians and Mexican half breeds, were chained to logs outside, where unprotected by roof or wall, they were, through sunshine and storm, left to enjoy the glorious climate of California.

This is a remarkable statement regarding the treatment of the people occupying the lower levels of a caste-based society at the end of the Mexican era and the beginning of the American period, although the fact that those better off were chained to a pine log and sat on a dirt floor is hardly indicative of reasonable treatment of prisoners by today's criteria.

The hillside jail remained in use for a dozen years, when a new building was built especially for the housing of city and county prisoners in 1853.  More on that in the next post.