Native Indian Forced Labor in the Los Angeles Criminal Justice System

The situation among the native Indians of the Los Angeles region is, as with so many parallels around the world, a sad tale of destruction and loss mingled with resiliency and determination for those indigenous people who have survived.

From the arrival of the Spaniards by land in 1769 onward, the Indians, called Gabrieleños by the conquerors, and such names as Tongva and Kizh by varying factions of descendants today, faced the onslaught of disease, forced labor, abject living conditions, destruction of native plant and animal resources, alcoholism, violence and other forces.  Despite this, there are many thousands of people today who claim some portion of native blood, even if the last of the pureblooded Gabrieleño passed on decades ago.

The situation continued to worsen in the American period, particularly as the Gold Rush and general western migration brought Americans and Europeans to the area in greater numbers.  Constituting the main labor force on the region's ranches and farms, the largest of which were roughly similar to the plantations of the South (and, not coincidentally, many of the new migrants to the Los Angeles area were from that part of the U.S.), natives were often paid in liquor, which they then consumed and, when drunk, were arrested and confined in jail.

Unable to pay the fines accuring on their convictions, Indians then found themselves subjected to being "hired out" as laborers to work off their sentences.  This was, in effect, a forced labor system that some have likened to slavery.

The system of contracted labor of Indian convicts in the Los Angeles city jail was managed by the mayor, whose court heard the cases of public intoxication that led to convictions and sentences, and the city marshal, who was responsible for managing the jail.

In late Winter 1853, charges were brought by the county Grand Jury against Mayor John G. Nichols and Marshal George Batchelder for misconduct in office.  The two were alleged to have financially profited directly from the labor system.  The matter went before the Los Angeles district court, presided over by recently-elected Judge Benjamin Hayes.

As reported in the 26 February edition of the Los Angeles Star, however, "the court decided that the statutes on this subject applied expressly and exclusively to county, township and district officers" and "that in such a case as the present, the party, injured might have resorted to certioari, habeus corpus, and other adequate remedies."

A summary of the case of People v. John G. Nichols, mayor of Los Angeles, in the Los Angeles Star, 26 February 1853.

The concept of certioari, or legal review, involves having a higher court, such as the Los Angeles District Court, reviewing the rulings of a lower tribunal, like the Mayor's Court.  The issue of habeus corpus deals with unlawful imprisonment.

Essentially, Judge Hayes ruled that, because there were no specific state laws covering the question of misconduct in improper jailing (and, then, farming off Indian convicts for labor in lieu of paying fines) by a mayor and marshal, the only legal resort was to seek review of Nichols' rulings on Indian cases and Batchelder's imprisonment of natives.

Consequently, the notice in the paper simply observed: "Defendant was discharged."  The case file for the District Court proceeding, dated 20 February 1853, and now deposited with The Huntington Library, noted that the charges were dismissed.

Hayes' ruling and dismissal, of course, does not mean that Nichols and Batchelder were innocent of manipulation of Indian convicts in the matter of labor to "pay off" their fines.  It was, rather, a technical matter, something that, in other types of criminal cases, generally infuriated the press and many of the local populace.

In light of the statutes then in effect, though, it was the correct legal ruling.  Clearly, state law and practice did not, in this example, serve to protect native Indians from the predatory nature of forced labor.  As their numbers declined precipitously during the 1850s, from about 3,800 enumerated Indians in the 1852 state census to about 2,000 by 1860, natives suffered legal, as well as social, political and economic abuses, by omission as well as commission.

The practice of sending Indian convicts into forced labor on the area's ranches and farms in lieu of fines for intoxication convictions (brought about largely because of the practice of payment for that same labor with alcohol) is the ultimate example of the "vicious cycle" and a black mark on society in early American-era Los Angeles.

Los Angeles County Criminal Courts

From the establishment of Los Angeles County in Spring 1850, the court system in the region had essentially three levels for criminal matters.

At the lowest end of the spectrum was the mayor's court in Los Angeles and the justice courts in the town and outlying townships.  In these busy, but routine and continuously-operating, tribunals, the town's mayor and a justice of the peace would hear minor infractions of the law, including public drunkenness, disturbances of the peace and other petty crimes.  These cases, usually decided quickly during a session during the day or evening, garnered little attention.

Above these was the Court of Sessions, renamed the County Court by the mid-1860s, which heard almost all other criminal business, excepting the most serious of felonies.  It was so named because this court had terms specified by the legislature during the year.  The tribunal originally had a county judge presiding with the assistance of two of the justices of the peace from the county's townships.

This court also dealt with most of the civil cases held in the region and, for two years (1850-1852) was the governing body of Los Angeles County.  When this proved totally unworkable, it was decided to create boards of supervisors for each California county.

So, most cases involving property crimes and assault and battery prosecutions were heard by the sessions court, which kept the tribunal plenty busy and, usually, though not always, somewhat below the radar in terms of public attention.

This short article from the Los Angeles Star's edition of 6 March 1852 lamented the fact that the criminal cases arising from Court of Sessions were set aside due to imprecision in meeting the technical standards of state law.  This was hardly unique to this particular time, as inexact procedural processes plagued the system, leading to the overturning of verdicts, as well as the setting aside of cases generally, as was the case here.

Grand larcenies, serious assaults (intent to kill, with a deadly weapon, etc.), rape, and the several forms (manslaughter, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder) of homicide were usually (for a time, arson cases were heard at this level) the province of the District Court.

Whereas the other courts were operating within the county, the District Court had its jurisdiction in a much wider area througout southern California until the 1870s, when the court's district was within the confines of Los Angeles County (which did include what is now Orange County.)  That is, the district judge "rode circuit" holding legislatively-mandated terms in the county seats of the several regional counties.

The size of the district changed several times, so that, in earlier days, the judge might preside in cases as far north as San Luis Obispo and as far south as San Diego.  Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Bernardino counties were generally part of the First District, as well, though, again, the district shrunk in size as it grew in population.

Presiding over the most heinous of crimes, the District Court was given much more attention by the press and other observers.  It also had the problem of presiding over those cases that had the highest standards applied to criminal matters, so that convictions could be maddeningly few, especially those involving homicides, in which a unanimous verdict by the jury was mandated.  A lack of forensics, spotty evidence, and missing witnesses were among the hindrances to securing convictions for some of the most serious crimes committed in the area.

This blog will cover more detail on court operations, including how cases were prosecuted in court, who the prominent attorneys and district attorneys were, who the judges were, and how court cases files, even with their minimal contents (as governed by statuete), can give us a provisional view into the operations of the court system in the early days of the common law system in Los Angeles.

So, check back for more in coming weeks and months!