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.

The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1850: Part Two

As the first Los Angeles Common (later, City) Council enacted the town's original set of ordinances, it had to reconsider some of its positions upon reflection.

At its 16 August 1850 meeting, the council's Police Committee, consisting of council members Alexander Bell and Manuel Requena, resubmitted its report, claiming that the second and third articles proposing a prohibition on the carrying and discharge of firearms, which clearly was a problem in Los Angeles and would only get worse, should be scrapped as being impossible to enforce.

Manuel Requena (1802-1876) came to Los Angeles with the Hijar-Padres colony that included Agustín Olvera and the Coronels (Ignacio, Manuel and Antonio Franco), all of whom became prominent political and/or legal figures in Los Angeles.  Requena was twice alcalde (roughly akin to mayor) in 1836, during which time the town's first vigilance committee was formed, and in 1844.  He was a Common Council member for several terms in the years 1850-67, on the first county Board of Supervisors, and in other positions of responsibility.  He was a merchant and vintner, as well.  From the California Historical Society Collection, University of Southern California Libraries, U.S.C. Digital Library.

In their stead, Requena and Bell recommended a new second article requiring that "all City prisoners must be sentenced within two days" on any conviction for violation of ordinances and that the third would manadate that when the city did not have work for the chain gang, prisoners could be turned over to the public on the highest bid not less than the sum of their fine "and for double the time which they were to serve out at hard labor."  Although this was generally expressed, it became clear that the majority of those affected by what became a vicious cycle of enforced manual labor were native Indians--a point raised in this blog before.

Four additional ordinances were suggested by the committee.  First, the recorder was to be empowered to enforce penalties and collect fines, turning these monies over to the city treasurer every eight days.  Second, the recorder was to present a monthly report concerning prisoners arrested, those convicted, what the fine paid was and providing a list of those who served their sentences on the chain hang.  Then, another was that only those arrested for infractions of ordinances were to be city prisoners, "but criminals, apprehanded by the officers of the City, shall be held at the disposition of the County Judges."  Finally, the marshal would be required to enforce ordinances and report to the recorder those persons who were arrested, as well as "any important news that may transpire."

As the council deliberated upon the revised report, the new second and third articles were quickly approved, as was one about the banning of card playing in public.  On the fifteenth article concerning sentences and fines, Morris Goodman moved that article ten's limit on operating hours of retail establishments allow for a variance for those who lived in their shops, but this was denied by the council.  The body did, however, amend that article so that "no spiritous liquors shall be sold after the hour of eight p.m. in winter and after nine p.m. in summer."

Further discussion was had about the severer sentence and fines for those who polluted the town's zanjas (water ditches) and who allowed cattle to roam untied, with Casildo Aguilar suggesting a much lower sentence of rought half the jail time or fine, but this was rejected.

The listing for Manuel Requena in the 1850 federal census, actually taken on 18 January 1851.  He listed no occupation, but was shown in later censuses as a retired merchant and a vintner.  His self-declared property value of $14,500 was substantial.  Notably, betwen 1860 and 1870, when so many residents of Los Angeles, especially Spanish speakers, saw declines in wealth during a period of floor, drought and economic instability, his declared wealth remained consistently in the low $20,000 range, indicating that Requena was still quite prosperous.

At this and without considering the four new articles, council president Requena asked for a roll call and the vote was 4-2, with Jonathan Temple abstaining and then requesting an adjournment, but Requena, perhaps hoping Temple would change his mind and vote, asked for another call--but, again, Temple abstained and the vote was the same.

The next meeting, on 30 August, included Requena and Bell's request for an amendment to the sentencing, so that jail time would be no longer than 10 days in any case and this was approved, giving half of what Aguilar had requested two weeks prior.

The first two of the added ordinances regarding the recorder's responsibilities were approved, but the third was amended so that any reference to the disposition of criminals by county judges was stricken, presumably because there would be cases in which this was not so, whether to the town's justice of the peace or to the District Court.  The last of the ordinances specifying the marshal's duties was also approved.

Los Angeles's first ordinances were then established, although the eternal conflict between the making and the enforcing of laws would, naturally, ensue in short order, especially in the battle of limiting the hours of selling liquor, disturbing the peace, "furious" horse riding, keeping the zanjas clean, and others.

At this, a major change in the council's demographics was effected by the resignations, for reasons not recorded, of Casildo Aguilar and Julian Chavez.  The council then called for a special election on 9 September at El Palacio (The Palace), the substantial adobe residence of prominent merchant Abel Stearns.

Two days after the election, the council gathered on the 11th of September and the replacements of Aguilar and Chavez were sworn in, these being Wilson Jones and Benjamin D. Wilson.  Interestingly, Wilson was also county clerk and there was discussion about a potential conflict of interest, though the city attorney, Benjamin Hayes, determined that there was none.

The election results meant that, instead of an ethnically-balanced council, the body was now composed of six Americans and one Californio, this being president Requena.  The meeting concluded with a call for a special meeting two nights later at the home of Alexander Bell.  The next post will follow the activities of the council from there.

The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1850

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another questionable suggestion was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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