This Picture's Thousand Words: The Los Angeles City and County Jail, ca. 1870s

A stereoscopic photograph taken by Henry T. Payne in the first part of the 1870s from a hill takes in a panoramic view of a growing Los Angeles.  The town was in the midst of its first significant boom, with the population rising from about 6,000 in the 1870 census to approximately 15,000 within five years.  The first railroads came to town during that period, as did streetcars, banks, the first high school, a public library and a host of other additions and innovations.

What had not changed was the condition of the city and county jail, which has been often discussed on this blog.  In 1853, the city and county purchased the Rocha Adobe, the former townhouse of the family that once owned the Rancho La Brea west of town, from pioneer merchant Jonathan Temple.  The house, a long, narrow structure fronting the west side of Spring Street south of Temple and north of First, became an all-purpose municipal building, housing city and county offices and the courthouse.

In 1854, in the expansive courtyard behind the adobe, a two-story jail was constructed.  The first floor was adobe and used as the city lockup, while the second story was constructed of brick and housed county prisoners.  Grand jury reports and newspaper articles in succeeding years generally alternated between noting unclean, unsanitary and unhealthful conditions in the facility and stating that the jail was in decent repair, working order and cleanliness.  It is possible that much of this was dependent on the good offices of the jailer.

The county courthouse moved in the early 1860s just a bit north on Spring Street to Jonathan Temple's Market House, a two-story brick structure topped by a cupola with a clock on it and which failed, during a poor economy, as a commercial building with leased market stalls.

This detail of a stereoscopic photograph taken by Henry T. Payne in the first half of the 1870s shows the Market House at the top left, which served as the county courthouse and city hall from 1861 to  the late 1880s.  At the lower right is the Rocha Adobe, the courthouse from 1853 to 1861 and in its courtyard, closer to where Payne took the image on a hill to the west, is the two-story city and county jail, used until the mid-1880s.  The street at the lower right was known as Court Street and Jail Street, until the name Franklin was bestowed on it--this was used by Payne in his titling.  Spring Street runs just above the Rocha Adobe and Main just past the Market House/Courthouse.

The jail, however, remained in its location in the courtyard of the Rocha Adobe, which became a police station house.  In 1863, a mass lynching of five men (three American/European and two Latino) took place on the front veranda of the adobe.  Eight years later, during the horrors of the Chinese Massacre of 24 October 1871, several Chinese men were being led towards the jail, or were alleged to have been, when they were diverted to a local corral, used for the lynching of Michel Lachenais the previous December, and hung there.

The structure remained as the city jail even as Los Angeles experienced its first significant period of growth during the late 1860s to mid 1870s.  Then, after almost a decade of stagnation from 1876-1886, a renewed boom, usually denoted as the Boom of the Eighties, ensued after the completion of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe transcontinental railroad link directly to the city in 1885.

With the Rocha Adobe jail over thirty years old and woefully inadequate even in some of its earlier years, it was time for a change.  A new jail was constructed nearby and opened in late 1886.  The adobe remained for a time, serving as a commercial structure and a well-known image of the building shows a real estate and insurance business and a railroad ticket office in the adobe.

As for the photo, it was taken from that hillside location looking east.  At the far left is the Market House, which remained the county courthouse and city hall until new facilities were built in the late 1880s, during the great boom of that era.  Main Street runs left to right behind that building and Spring Street in front of it.  The clock read 11:45 a.m., probably a good time to get a photo while the sun was off to the right or south!

The Rocha Adobe is the long, low structure at the lower right with what, in the 1870s was known as Franklin Street coming down from Payne's vantage point to meet Spring Street just to the right of the adobe.  In the courtyard behind the adobe and closer to Payne, is the two-story jail.  A variety of smaller structures and lean-tos are in the yard, as well, which looks to be in a generally well-kept a condition.

This photo was taken at a time, as mentioned above, when Los Angeles was in transition from a relatively isolated frontier town to a small, but growing city.  The image reflects that, as newer brick structures and some wooden ones, as well, are in the mix along with adobe buildings.  There were few distinctions between residential and commercial areas at the time, though clearly the latter were becoming more predominant in this part of town.  This was because the area south of Temple Street, along Main and Spring, was becoming the commercial district of the city.

Payne, an Illinois native who came to Los Angeles from Santa Barbara in the late 1860s, bought the photo studio and inventory of William M. Godfrey and reissued many of Godfrey's photos under his name, as well as took a great many images through the 1870s.  He was a partner with Thomas Stanton for a period in the 1880s and later worked as a journalist in San Francisco, before returning to the Los Angeles area, dying in Glendale in the early 1930s in his eighties.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Criminal Justice, 1859

The last year of the 1850s found the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors having relatively little business to conduct in the matter of the administration of criminal justice.

It may have been that, after the tremendous spate of violence that roiled the town and county during the tumultuous years of the Gold Rush and the peak of ethnic tension and violence of 1856 and 1857 with the Jenkins/Ruiz incident and the massacre of Sheriff Barton and his posse and the resulting manhunt, the situation was significantly calmer in terms of problems between the Latino and Anglo populations.  In fact, the next major community incident would not be until late in 1863 and even that didn't appear to be ethnically motivated.

Possibly, the economic downturn that came with the end of the Gold Rush by the middle Fifties, the national depression of 1857, and local malaise as cattle ranches were stuck with a glut in the inventory of livestock, kept some criminality lower than in the flush years before, especially property crimes like larcenies.

This isn't to say, however, that there weren't continuing spasms of violence.  For example, the 22 October 1859 edition of the Los Angeles Star lamented that "it is the misfortune of our city, to be infested by a band of worthless vagabonds, too lazy to work, but ready to steal, and murder, too, if necessary to carry out their depredations."

Vagabonds could imply that the moribund economy led drifters into the area, as the paper asserted they were "the offscourings of other localities."  The paper claimed none receny crimes could be attributed to local, permanent citizens.  Consequently, the article concluded "the crimes committed by these outlaws are charged against our community, and we have to bear the burden of their turpitude."

The Los Angeles Star of 22 October 1859 lamented the crimes committed by "vagabonds" from outside the county--a common complaint during the crime-ridden 1850s.

In any case, 1859 was a rather mundane year compared to its predecessors.  A sign of that was at the 7 February board meeting, when the county treasurer was ordered to transfer funds from the armed bandit fund, created to pay for expenses in hunting bandits during those rougher years earlier in the decade, to the Current Expense [General] Fund.

The following day the board reasserted the tax levy for the Jail Fund as 30 cents for each $100 of assessed property, which, again, shows how low tax rates were for a basic public service that took up a majority of the county's expenses.  Regarding the jail, the same 8 February meeting included an authorization by the board's Committee on Contingent Expenses to the jail physician to examine the quality of the food provided to prisoners, as per the order of 4 February 1858.

There had also been a change in the jailor.  Joseph H. Smith, who was defeated in the sheriff's race in 1858 by James Thompson, had been in charge of the facility, but was replaced by Richard Mitchell.  Mitchell years later would be among the several men deployed by Sheriff William R. Rowland in the well-planned and executed capture of famed bandit Tiburcio Vásquez in spring 1874.

Previous posts pointed out the matter of juror lists and the question of whether the ethnic imbalance in these pools were directly tied to whether defendants in the county's courts could receive justice.  After all, a trial by a jury of peers could, to some people, signify a balance of ethnicity (though not of gender, because women were not then allowed to serve on juries).  In the mid 19th century, however, peers simply meant persons from the community.

Moreover, as also stated here, an analysis by this blogger of over 1,200 criminal court cases from 1850 to 1875 and of those that had a stated disposition showed that the conviction rate differentials between those cases involving Spanish-surnamed defendants and those who were American or European were small.  In addition, even as juries became even more skewed towards American and European majorities after 1865, the conviction rate difference narrowed.

The only recorded jury lists in the 1859 minutes came in May and August, when 68 jurors were identified.  Of those, eight had Spanish-language surnames, comprising about 12% of the total, more or less consistent with previous lists, but still very low.  What isn't known, incidentally, is what proportion of Los Angeles County residents on the tax rolls were Spanish-surnamed and whether their representation on those rolls were significantly lower than for Americans and Europeans.

In 1858, a measure, approved by the California legislature, to put the matter of a $25,000 loan for a new court house before the county's voters was narrowly defeated in the early September election by a matter of just a few dozen votes.  The supervisors decided to take up the idea again in 1859 and secured the legislature's approval for a new ballot measure.

In August, as an aside, five new election precincts were created for Los Angeles County, with most of them having some connection to a mining boom that took place in what were then usually called the Sierra Madre, but later changed to San Gabriel, Mountains.  These precincts included two called the "Upper and Lower San Gabriel Mines" up in San Gabriel Canyon above the new precinct of Azusa, as well as San Francisco [San Francisquito] Canyon, near modern Santa Clarita and where there was mining activity, as well as Tehachapi.  The last of these was in Los Angeles County for seven years until the creation of Kern County in 1866.

Now all of these were sparsely populated regions of the county, so how much influence any or all of these could have had on the court house vote is questionable, given that most people either resided in the the city of Los Angeles or the township of that name that surrounded it.

Not that it really mattered, actually, as the published returns in the minutes of the 19 September board meeting revealed that the court house loan only secured 162 yes votes, while 1,766 persons voted no!  Is it any wonder that the county gave up the idea of trying to secure a loan for a new court house and turned once again to prominent citizen Jonathan Temple?

Recall that Temple, who paid for the Ord Survey of 1849, the first professional survey of Los Angeles, sold the Rocha Adobe to the county in 1853 for a little over $3,000 with the adobe housing the courts, as well as city hall and county offices.  In 1859, Temple, who two years before, built one of the earliest brick commercial structures in town, which became the first of several structures comprising the Temple Block, took an "island" between Main and Spring and between Temple and 1st streets, and built the Market House, which also contained the first true theater on its second floor--years before the Merced Theatre was constructed near the Plaza.

This has been discussed here on the blog before, but Temple's Market House, designed as a commercial structure after the fashion of Faneuil Hall in Boston, which was near Temple's hometown of Reading, Massachusetts, came at the wrong time because of the poor economy.  However, Temple and the city and county came to an agreement to convert the structure to the court house, as well as city and county offices.

Notably, Temple ran for supervisor in the September elections, along with his half-brother, former supervisor and city treasurer, F.P.F. Temple, Temple's father-in-law William Workman, half-owner of Rancho La Puente in the eastern San Gabriel Valley and thirteen other candidates.

This card taken out by Ezra Drown in the Star's edition of 27 August 1859 addressed accusations that he was a former "Know Nothing", a name for the nativist, xenophobic American Party that controlled local and state politics briefly in the mid-1850s and a "Black Republican" running for district attorney in a Democratic-dominated county, filled by Southerners.  As noted at the bottom by the paper, Drown actually worked on behalf of Democrats to counter "Know Nothing" politicians.

  There was an interesting political situation in Los Angeles, reflecting the national problem of the impending slide towards Civil War and respecting views of states' rights, slavery and so forth.  Mainstream Democrats, who ruled the political roost in Los Angeles, uniformly won elections, but there was an alternate group of Democrats, who weren't as solidly pro-Southern, who ran in this campaign, including Workman and a few others.

Yet, some office seekers were from the northern states and managed, on occasion, to secure election.  One of these was Abel Stearns, who came to Los Angeles in 1829, the year after his fellow Massachusetts native Jonathan Temple and, like him, became a prominent merchant.  Stearns managed to win a seat as a supervisor in the 1859 campaign, though both Temples were defeated (F.P.F. came fairly close at 160 votes behind Stearns, but Jonathan only secured 261 votes.)

The other winners for supervisor seats were Ransom B. Moore, Cristobal Aguilar, Antonio F. Coronel, and Gabriel Allen.  Aguilar and Coronel were prominent Californios, discussed here before, who held political office frequently in the first quarter century of the American era.  

Allen, a native of New York, came to California as a soldier in the Mexican-American War and then returned east for several years.  In 1852, he journeyed back to dig for gold, but shortly after came to Los Angeles.  He married a local Latina, and became known as a road builder, particularly the difficult Tejon Road, north from Los Angeles towards San Francisco.  After his single term oin 1859-60, Allen turned to ranching and farming, but returned to serving as a supervisor in the mid-1870s for a full term and part of another (they were then 2-year terms).  He owned property in what is now the Costa Mesa area of Orange County, near Tehachapi and mines in Arizona.  He lived in Los Angeles until his death at 80 in 1899.

Moore hailed from St. Joseph, Missouri, where he became a newspaper reporter and editor before migrating to California in 1853 and settling in the new "American town" of El Monte as a cattle rancher.  His only foray into politics was his single term as a supervisor though he was an election inspector for the "Old Mission" precinct south of El Monte, where the original site of Mission San Gabriel was at Whittier Narrows.  Moore later lived in San Bernardino and owned the Rancho San Gorgonio in the pass of that name. In the 1880s, he relocated to Arizona and died there in 1904.

This list of township justices of the peace and constables for Los Angeles County appeared in the 8 October 1859 issue of El Clamor Público.  Copies of this paper were provided courtesy of Paul Bryan Gray.

Other election results included the reelection of County Judge (who presided over the Court of Sessions where most criminal matters were heard) William G. Dryden by a vote of 1197-937 over attorney and federal district judge Kimball H. Dimmick; the election of Tomás Sánchez, who had a prominent role in the manhunt for Sheriff Barton's killers, as sheriff by a 938-815 margin over Joseph H. Smith, with Frank H. Alexander securing 439 votes; and Southern firebrand E.J.C. Kewen besting former incumbent Ezra Drown for district attorney, 1115-902.   

Among the several townships and elections for justices of the peace and constables, William C. Warren, a young, new arrival to town finished third as a constable for Los Angeles township, but he would later by marshal and get involved in an infamous gunfight with one of his constables--this will be recounted in a future post here.  At San Gabriel, Roy Bean, whose brother was murdered in another incident to be related later here, was reelected as a constable.  Bean would go on to notoriety in Texas as a judge known as "The Law West of the Pecos."

As for the latter part of 1859, news was pretty scanty regarding criminal justice administration matters.  On 14 November, the supervisors rejected a claim from Juan Sepulveda for guarding the jail because it stated that new sheriff Sánchez did not get board approval for Sepulveda's appointment. 

A week later, after proposals were sought for a jail physician, there was only one respondent, this being prominent doctor John S. Griffin, who came to Los Angeles with the invading American military in 1846 and became a well-known citizen (and staunch supporter of the South.)  Interestingly, another physician, J.C. Welsh, was given a contract on 2 December, to supply medicines to the jail and hospital at $50 per month, but this was rescinded and lowered to $19.25 per month.  It is not clear if this interfered with Griffin's contract, however.

On 21 November, the board ordered Sánchez to have a nuisance, involving some structure, in the jail yard at the Rocha Adobe abated "and caused the house to be removed and properly constructed," with the monies to come from the jail fund.  Former jailor Francis J. Carpenter was hired to carry out this work.  Two weeks later, at the 3 December meeting, the supervisors ordered the sheriff to have jail inmates build a ten-foot tall wooden fence around the jail yard.

As a tangential note, the 6 December meeting had a record of rumors reaching the supervisors of an impending effort to unite Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties (as noted here before, San Bernardino County was carved out of Los Angeles in 1853, which created what is still America's largest county by area).  The rumor seemed to have enough behind it that the board adoped a resolution protesting against such a move.  Whatever effort there was went nowhere, though.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that the end of 1859 also meant the final issue, on 31 December, of Los Angeles' first Spanish-language newspaper, El Clamor Público, which has been referred to many times in this blog, and will in future posts.  The economy, low subscriptions and the political and social problems felt by its proprietor, Francisco P. Ramirez, were among the factors for the shuttering of this remarkable newspaper.

We'll be coming back later to more of the Board of Supervisors minutes, but will move onto other criminal justice administration matters in the meantime.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Criminal Justice, 1857

The year 1857 began with the horrific ambush of Sheriff James R. Barton and four members of the posse he led against a gang of thieves, known as the Flores-Daniel Gang, who had been committing robberies and a murder at San Juan Capistrano.  This incident has been discussed in detail here in this blog.

The first meeting of the year was on the 28th, soon after the murders, and the board's primary business was to order that the vacancies of the office of sheriff and for the two constables, Charles Baker and William Little, killed in the incident be filled.  The board then set the date of 7 February for their next meeting and to make those appointments.

Four of the five members, Manuel Dominguez being absent, were present and the chair was Tomás Sánchez, whose service under Andrés Pico, in the manhunt to capture the killers was very important.

A new supervisor was El Monte resident Richard C. Fryer, who was among that town's settlers in 1852.  An ordained Baptist minister, the first in the Los Angeles region, Fryer later moved to the town of Spadra, founded by former El Monte settler William W. Rubottom, in what is now Pomona and served in the state assembly.

Another neophyte to the board was San Gabriel-area farmer William M. Stockton, who was among the first to travel across Death Valley in 1849 on his way to the newly discovered gold fields of California.  In 1852, Stockton, who did well in the mines, moved to Los Angeles and acquired part of the Huerta de Cuati, a grant of land made to native Indian Victoria Reid.  Stockton acquired what was known as the "Pear Orchard," a remnant of the Mission San Gabriel's former fruit orchards and where he had a vineyard, and moved into an adobe home in what is now San Marino.  When times were bad in the drought-ridden mid-1860s, Stockton lost the property to two men, including his fellow Death Valley traveler William M. Manly, whose published reminiscences were widely read.  He remained in the area, however, and died in 1894.  Stockton was among those present when Miguel Soto, said to have been in the Flores-Daniel gang, and a few other Latinos were killed by San Gabriel-area citizens just as this meeting took place--his role is not certain, however.

Then there was Jonathan R. Scott, who has been mentioned in this blog before several times.  A native of New York, who lived in Missouri for a period, Scott abandoned a wife and children in his home state when he moved west.  Upon arriving in Los Angeles in 1850, he opened a law practice and was a justice of the peace.  He was the 6'4" giant who could reach up and crush termite-ridden ceiling joists in the Rocha Adobe courthouse not long before his election to the board, though he didn't complete his term.  Scott died in 1864 in Los Angeles, having owned considerable property downtown and a vineyard in what is today Burbank.

The four supervisors each voted for a candidate: Charles E. Hale, a lawman mentioned here before; El Monte resident Frank Gentry, John Reed, whose father-in-law, John Rowland, owned half of the massive Rancho La Puente in the eastern San Gabriel Valley, and Elijah Bettis, also mentioned in the last post.  After a second route stalemate, it was decided to wait until the next meeting, presumably with Dominguez, who was owner of the Rancho San Pedro and a delegate to the 1849 constitutional convention, could cast the deciding vote.  Meantime, William H. Peterson was appointed to serve out Little's term as constable, but Baker's position was not filled.

On the 14th, again with Dominguez assumed to be present, Baker's constable slot was filled by B.B. Barker and the vote was to appoint Bettis as sheriff.

The 2 March meeting contained more material related to the Flores-Daniel gang, in which District Attorney Cameron E. Thom suggested that the board appoint someone to petition the state legislature for approval of funds as provided for in a statute "to suppress armed banditti," in both Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties which was passed on 4 February in response to the Barton massacre.

Benjamin D. Wilson, a former city clerk and mayor in Los Angeles and later supervisor and state senator, who moved to the same Huerta de Cuati mentioned above and established his "Lake Vineyard" estate, where San Marino's Lacy Park is situated, was appointed to this task of obtaining a warrant from the state and, if the funds were not available from the treasury, to sell the warrant for cash.  The monies were to go into a special fund called the "Fund to Provide for the Arrest and Suppression of Bands of Armed Banditti in the County of Los Angeles."

This editorial from the Los Angeles Star, 25 April 1857, discusses the "disorganized state" in Los Angeles County that kept the region from assuming the "position and prospects" it deserved.  See below for the rest of the piece.

At the same meeting, Thom suggested that the board also approach the legislature about approving a special tax of 1/8 of 1% of the county's assessed property value for payment of the debt attached to the court house.

When three weeks later, on the 23rd, a special meeting was called to deal with unfinished business that did "serious injury" to the county, discussion was had about the county's finances going back to the previous summer and the meetings continued for two days, but there was no record of what transpired.  It was revealed at that meeting that Scott resigned and his replacement, former Los Angeles mayor, state senator, and constitutional convention delegate, Stephen C. Foster (who famously resigned the mayoralty to participate in the early 1855 lynching of convicted murderer, David Brown, and then was promptly returned to the office in the resulting special election), was elected chair.

In meetings in April and May, lists of jurors who served at the recent terms of the Court of Sessions and District Court were provided.  The last post noted that this was a new feature of the minutes and the ethnic breakdown of these juries have been the focus of speculation about whether justice in these courts was possible when the juries were so skewed towards European and American membership.

For these two months, the proportions were obvious.  Of 120 men listed, 17, of only 14%, had Spanish-language surnames.  In November, a smaller list of Sessions jurors, showed 3 of 21, also 14%, were Latino  Yet, surviving case files with dispositions noted for trials do not appear to suggest any bias solely because of jury composition given the relatively close rate of convictions for defendants who were Latino compared to those who were Anglo.

At the 8 May meeting of the board, there was a list of payments made out to those who provided a variety of materials and services in the hunt for the Flores-Daniel Gang.  These included medical care by doctors, the rent of rooms to posses, the hiring of horses, sundry supplies, food, ammunition and the building of gallows and provision of coffins for the men who were summarily executed (lynched).

Of the total of 51 items, about a third were from persons with Spanish-language surname, a notable point given that some historians argue that Flores and Daniel were vaguely identified "social bandits," who emjoyed substantial support and succor from fellow Latinos.  Whether this was true or not, it appears there were some Latinos who were willing, or perhaps were forced in some circumstances as there is no way to tell, to provide aid to those hunting the bandits.  In early November, another 12 persons were reimbursed for ammunition, horses and supplies.

An important financial matter was addressed at the meeting of 5 August, which was a levy of 35 cents on every 100 dollars of assessed property for expenses for the maintenance of the jail, always a major expense for the county, as well as payments on the Rocha Adobe, which comprised the court house and city and county offices, with the jail in its rear courtyard.

At the same meeting, the board voted, correspondingly, to increase the allowance, taken from the Jail Fund, for prisoner maintenance to 75 cents for each "white" person, including Latinos, and 50 cents per Indian.  Jailor Francis Carpenter had his salary increased to $1600 per year, though it was also resolved that

the jailor is to furnish at his own proper cost the necessary lights, water, wood, and to keep the jail in good order, and also to furnish the prisoners with good, wholesome food.  He is also to have the jail swept and whitewashed when necessary for which purpose the County is to furnish the necessary brooms and whitewash

In the September county election, there was only one candidate for county judge, incumbent William G. Dryden, but whether it was because of his popularity, or the difficulty and lack of desirability for the job cannot be determined.  The race for sheriff was between John Reed, who was one of four candidates for appointment earlier in the year after Barton's death, and Los Angeles marshal William C. Getman, who was reelected to that post (it was possible then to hold both!).  The campaign for district attorney was decisive, when Ezra Drown bested Samuel R. Campbell, 1262 to 107.  The new Los Angeles justices of the peace were Russell Sackett and Narciso Botello, the latter a long-time member of the Californio elite, but one of the few to hold elected office in those days.  Constables elected were Frank H. Alexander and Robert A. Hester, both of whom were to serve for extended periods in those positions.

The second portion of the Star editorial of 25 April 1857.

In San Gabriel, Roy Bean, mentioned in the last post and who later went on to be a notorious Texas judge, barely secured election by one vote over Felipe Valenzuela as a constable.  Another interesting character in town, disgraced former Los Angeles marshal, Alviron S. Beard, ran for justice of the peace but garnered only 3 votes!  

Then there was William W. Jenkins, the young deputy constable mentioned in the last post and previously in the blog.  After his killing of Antonio Ruiz in July 1856, which led to a standoff between Spanish-speakers and Anglos in Los Angeles and near violence, and, after his acquittal, Jenkins unsuccessfully sought a constable's position (but his loss saved his life, probably, because he would have been with Sheriff Barton when that massacre took place.)  In any case, Jenkins moved to the San Pedro township, by the harbor, and won election there as a constable.

At El Monte, a young man, Andrew Jackson King, whose family was embroiled in at least two Southern-style feuds in the 1850s and 1860s, was elected a constable.  He later went on to be a newspaper publisher, city attorney, judge , assembly member, and ran a prviate law practice for many years, dying in his 90th year.

At the 30 September meeting, there was an interesting reference to a District Court civil case in which jailor Carpenter was sued by the people and a judgment of $2500 was found against him--the matter needs further research, but it would appear it had something to do with his claims for fees and services.

Perhaps not coincidentally, at the 5 November meeting with the new board seated, his compensation was slashed to $3 per day (a good $500 or more reduction annually) and the prisoner maintenance costs were reduced to 50 cents a head with no distinction between whites and Indians.  It is possible that the worsening post-Gold Rush economy (a national depression also broke out in 1857) was the cause of the reductions, however.

In the last post, it was noted that payments for the purchase of the Rocha Adobe for the court house and city and county offices were being made to Luis Jordan, who held a note on the property before it was sold by the Rochas to Jonathan Temple, who then conveyed the adobe and lot for $3160 to the city and county.  At the 5 November meeting, the board authorized payment of over $2200 to Jordan's minor daughter, who had an appointed guardian, vineyardist Mathew Keller, for her interest in the structure.

Finally, another disgraced city marshal's situation came before the board at this meeting.  Alfred Shelby, who skipped bail and headed to Mexico as he was being readied for trial in a homicide he committed, had a surety who posted a bond for Shelby's good conduct in office.  The same situation applied to two Latinos for another individual and the board resolved to these three parties could satisfy and cancel in county scrip (an IOU) their forfeited amounts of bond within ten days.  Otherwise, District Attorney Drown was empowered to pursue legal action in court to recover those funds.

It was quite a busy year in 1857 and the situation would be calmer the following year as the next post will discuss.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Criminal Justice, 1854

In October 1853, the third edition of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors convened, with David W. Alexander the chair as he was the previous year,  He was joined by Stephen C. Foster, who filled a vacancy created a few months as noted in the last post; Samuel S. Thompson, who was an early settler in the new "American town" of El Monte in 1852 and who died there about thirty-five years later; Juan Sepulevda (1814-1898), who was from a prominent Californio family; and Cristobal Aguilar (1816-1886), who served four terms on the Common Council, three as a supervisor, and was a three-term mayor.

As was discussed in the last post, the board confronted problems with the expenses of maintaining the jail with a paltry budget and the last board's decision to support the Los Angeles Rangers paramilitary group meant further expenditures, including $1000 given for materials as submitted by board member Foster and Collins Wadhams.  Sheriff James B. Barton had well over $500 in fees due him for his services and $100 for transporting prisoners from San Diego.  Jailor George W. Whitehorn sent in a bill for $566.75 for his salary and maintenance of prisoners.  To be confronted with over $2000 in bills at one meeting was a hefty expense for the board.

Not only that, but the board, on 4 October, approved a bill submitted by constable William B. Osburn for $320 in the matter of two brothers in the Lugo family and associated of theirs in a notorious matter involving accusations and a long drawn-out legal nightmare for the Lugos back in 1851.

There was also the matter of the county's recent agreement to buy the Rocha Adobe off Spring Street from merchant Jonathan Temple for the court house and county offices.  A building committee was asked to secure $1500 from the city of Los Angeles as part of their share in the structure and its improvements for public uses.

Jonathan Temple (1796-1866), seated at right, with his wife Rafaela Cota and son-in-law, Gregorio de Ajuria, was a prominent merchant and land owner in greater Los Angeles.  He sold the Rocha Adobe on the west side of Spring Street to the city and county of Los Angeles in 1854 for use as a courthouse and public offices.  In the rear of the structure, a two-story jail was built that served in that capacity for many years.  Photo courtesy of the Workman and Temple Family Homestead Museum.

Some of these improvements involved board chair David W. Alexander and his business partner, new arrival in town, Phineas Banning, later the father figure of the harbor at San Pedro/Wilmington.  This kind of conflict of interest, of course, would be disallowed today, but not in the looser operations of frontier Los Angeles.  OThere were others bills submitted by those involved in the work and the board gave $2000 to Foster and W.T.B. Sanford to distribute to contractors, while also empowering the two to collect $1000 from the city for its share of the work.

On 8 November, came an urgent request from the county clerk, John W. Shore, which led to a board resolution

that the room designated for his use in the County Buildings is insufficient for the proper performance of his duties . . . [and] for the safe custody & proper arrangment of his archives, therefore [it is] ordered that the room designated in the County Court House as a Jurors room, be taken possession of by the said Clerk and appropriated for his use in addition to the front room already intended for the use of said County Clerk.

It is not stated where the jurors were supposed to meet for the deliberations, but, if the clerk's quarters were not improved, who knows what would have happened to the minute books (and, this post would not have been possible!)  In fact, there was a fire in the county clerk's space later that also threatened to destroy the archival material, some of which has survived.

As 1854 dawned, major bills were submitted by the district attorney, Kimball H. Dimmick, for $345, William Osburn, who was also a doctor attending on the jail and charging $175,Sheriff Barton for $350, and for jailor Whitehorne for nearly $600.  There was also an interesting notation in which the board "allowed a/c/ [account] of Nelson Mason for dunner for 12 hungry jurymen."  Funds were also expended for the funeral of constable John (Jack) Wheelan, the first law enforcement officer in Los Angeles killed in the line of duty, when he was cut down in Sonoratown, north of the Plaza, a few weeks prior.

Another expenditure was the rent of the buildings used as the jail in recent months, including from Juan Dominguez for $200, although a quarter of that was in scrip (I.O.U.), a common procedure at the time for a frequently cash-strapped county, and from Francisco J. Alvarado, for the last two months of 1853, for $28.  As work on the jail continued, a bill for $216 was submitted by Alfred Foster for his contributions.

Another indication of financial stress and efforts to mitigate the rising costs payable by the county came with a petition from the board on 4 January to the state's supreme court calling for a reduction in fees paid to the sheriff for attendance at the courts, this "being too high and disproportionate to the fees of other offices and from the multiplicty of our Courts causing a heavy burthen [sic] on the revenues of this county,"

In March, Los Angeles witnessed its first legal execution, with Manuel Herrera was hung for the murder of Nestor Artiaga and, in early April, carpenter Ira Gilchrist was compensated an unknown amount "for services as Carpenter making Gallows &c."  At the same meeting of the 3rd, jailor Whitehorne submitted bills totaling nearly $700 for maintenance of prisoners and the facility, while Barton charged almost $750 for attendance at the courts.  It also appears that the appeal to the state's highest court for relief on the sheriff's fees went nowhere, because in early July, Barton and Whitehorne submitted bills totaling over $1000.

However, it was generally pretty quiet when it came to criminal justice matters for the remainder of the year, at least as reflected by County Clerk Shore in the minutes.  A new slate of supervisors took office on 2 October, led again by Alexander, who was obviously highly respected given his consistency in being elected and named chair of the board.

The only returning supervisor for 1854-55 was Cristobal Aguilar.  Newly seated members included David Lewis, another early settler in El Monte, when it was established a couple of years previously and two prominent men with long ties to the criminal justice system and politics in Los Angeles.

The first was James R. Barton, who was still serving as sheriff when he secured his seat with the supervisors (as seen a few times on this blog, it was possible then to hold two elected offices at the same time).  Yet, Barton would only serve the single term, perhaps finding that the excitement and, probably, the fees earned, as sheriff were preferable to being a politician.  As covered here in detail, though, Barton was killed, along with members of a posse, while hunting for the Flores-Daniel gang of thieves in what later became Orange County in early 1857.

The other major figure was Agustín Olvera, who had a number of positions of authority in the Mexican period, and was the first county judge, serving until 1853 and was simultaneously a member of the common council, before he went into private practice as an attorney for a couple of years.

What is interesting, though, is that, although there was a spate of crimes, including notorious murders committed in the latter part of 1854, these warranted almost no mention in the supervisor's minute book.  It was stated in early October that district attorney Benjamin Eaton submitted $175 in bills for charging criminals in indictments.  At the same meeting of the 3rd, a special constable, W. Burt, was mentioned briefly--perhaps he was hired because of the crime wave.

A week later, the board was presented with an account by Charles O. Cunningham of El Monte, E. O. Johnson, and John Weir for $30.75 in the pursuit of criminals.  It may be that the trio went hunting for the killers of James Ellington, a fellow El Monte resident of Cunningham.  Later, Felipe Alvitre and two others were found hiding in Soquel Canyon, in what is now the borderland of Orange and San Bernardino counties near Chino Hills and Brea.  Alvitre's story will be told later in this blog.

The same meeting, on 10 October, the board ordered an increase, despite the fiscal fragility with the county's budget, in prisoner maintenance, so that whites (this would include Spanish-speakers) would have their needs met at 75 cents per day, while Indians would have to get by on materials costing 50 cents.  At the end of November, it was ordered that, despite the lowering of it before, the salary of the district attorney was insufficient and that it should be increased by $150 per month, "considering the increasing amount of labor of his office."  Again, the recent crime wave was almost certainly a factor.

The next post takes us to 1855, which started off with a great deal of drama, but more on that next time around . . .

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Criminal Justice, 1853

The second group of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, at work in 1852-53, dealt significantly with the matter of building a new city and county jail, but did so in the context of mounting problems dealing with the fragile financial fortunes of the county.

As noted before, the cadre of five, elected in fall 1852, was an entirely new slate from its predecessors and was a mixture of little-known citizens, like G.A. Sturgis and Daniel M. Thomas  and prominent members of Los Angeles society, namely Benjamin D. Wilson and David W. Alexander.

As their predecessors found, there were some substantial claims made on the county for services rendered by public officials dealing with criminal justice.  One of the first meetings of the new board included an allowance of $1500 as salary for district attorney Kimball H. Dimmick, later a federal district judge, as well as over $300 to jailer George D. Robinson and another $600 to Sheriff James R. Barton, San Gabriel constable J.D. Barker, whose work was probably connected with dealing with the sensational murder of merchant and militia general against southern California Indians, Joshua Bean, justices of the peace and former sheriff George T. Burrill and J. S. Mallard and others.  Expenditures of $2500 at one meeting of the board must have taken a significant part of the county's meager coffers, as will be noted below.

The flow of money continued the next day, with new jailor George W. Whitehorne submitting bills for nearly $200, another $100 from Barton and a smaller amount of money from others, including supervisor Sturgis, who was also serving as justice of the peace at San Gabriel, Burrill, and Dimmick.  At this meeting, Sheriff Barton was also asked to oversee repairs to the Court House, a rented adobe that was, seemingly, in perpetual need of significant work, when band-aid repairs were usually what could be afforded.

Financial matters came to a head on 1 December, when Whitehorne submitted bills totaling a little over $160 for jail services and was informed that there was a lack of funds and he would have to wait until funds were received before getting paid.  The county treasurer, Francis Mellus, reported to the council that there simply were no funds to cover expenses.

In the first meeting of 1853, held on 3 January, the requests for payment kept coming, totaling well over $700 with most of the money being for jail expenses (this proved to almost always be the case) and to Sheriff Barton for summoning juries and for constable William B. Osburn for attending the justice court of Burrill in Los Angeles.

Two days later, the contract executed with J.D. Hunter to build the jail was annulled with the reason given that it was "by an act of Providence he is now prevented from proceeding with it," though what the providential act was did not get recorded.  The minutes also stated "that the locality of said Jail is unsuitable & the plan on which it was to be built not conforming to the requirements of the Law."  It also would appear that, given the financial strictures noted above, there was not enough money to contemplate continuing with the jail project.

In fact, at the 5 January meeting, it was reported that the county's debt was nearing $50,000, a significant sum given the low revenue it received and treasurer Mellus stated that this condition "will not suffice to build a suitable Jail, the imperative necessity of which is felt by all the people of the County."

Consequently, the board voted to petition 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."  This, evidently, went nowhere.

More expenditures, almost in mind-numbing sameness, came in the following few months, most of this, again, being for the maintenance of the jail, but also substantially comprised of fees for constables, the sheriff, and other officers for their work.  The board issued a new order for allowing the jailor $5 a day for his services and $1 per day for wood and candles.  Matters were such that county clerk Wilson W. Jones requested, through the District Court, that an audit of accounts be done because he was owned a considerable sum (unstated) for his services.

Perhaps the financial problems of the county were too much for Leonardo Cota and Daniel M. Thomas, who resigned in early July, just a few months shy of the end of the term.  William Foster and James R. Waite were appointed to finish out the term.

David W. Alexander, left, with long-time friend and rancher William Workman, shown in 1851 in New York, was chair of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in 1852-53 and later a sheriff in 1856 and 1876-77.  Courtesy of the Workman and Temple Family Homestead Museum.

At a meeting two days later, the board resolved that, "in view of the expense of the Rent of the building at present occupied as the Jail of Los Angeles County, [it is] 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."   The board ordered Sheriff Barton, who was the tax collector, to remit $70 from the first available funds and rent a new building, owned by F.I. Alvarado, for the jail, provided that Barton was "to repair the same as to make it suitable for that purpose," whatever "suitable" entailed.

The situation was such that, on 11 July, the board voted to slash the district attorney's salary in half from $1500 to $750, payable quarterly, while jailor's fees and those of the constables and sheriff continued to absorb most of the budget.

In early August, the board came to terms with prominent merchant Jonathan Temple to buy the Rocha Adobe, on the west side of Spring Street, for a court house and county offices, the price being $3160.  $1000 was apportioned immediately for repairs.  Further, the board "ordered that a County and City Jail be built on the Rocha lot aforesaid according to the law & specifications presented by S.C. Foster & filed with the Clerk and the said Foster and W.T.B. Sanford constitute a committee to contract for the materials and Building of said Jail."

The total cost of the jail was not to exceed $6000, with the city of Los Angeles having a 1/4 interest through a $1500 lien on the property.  The city jail was to occupy the first floor and the city and jailor were to share a room as an office.  Meanwhle, the city was granted the use of two rooms in the northeast corner of the Rocha Adobe for its use.  The city's total share of costs was to be $1500 up front and $1000 after a year.  The board also mandated that 10 cents on each 100 dollars of taxable property was to go to a contingent fund to aid in the purchase and building of county structures up to a maximum of $7000.

Foster would soon be mayor of Los Angeles during one of its frequent crime crises--this being the spate of murders in late 1854 that led to a notorious execution of Felipe Alvitre and lynching of Dave Brown in the first part of 1855, for which Foster helped lead the lynching after resigning as mayor.  He then was promptly reelected in the special election that followed!

Once the deals with Temple, Foster and Sanford were inked, a new issue came up as crime rose dramatically during the spring and early summer of 1853.  The supervisors, on 11 August, resolved that

whereas in the opinion of this Board, it is proper & necessary to aid the well directed efforts of certain citizens of this County, in their endeavour to preserve the public peace, and as the aforesaid Citizens have organized a Volunteer Company for that purpose, under command of A.W. Hope, [it is] ordered that, accounts for the expenses of maintaining horses & such reasonable acc[oun]ts for equipments &c to the amount of one thousand dollars & no farther under any consideration [was to be apportioned].

This was the county's official "seal of approval" for the Los Angeles Rangers, the best known of many militia groups that formed in Los Angeles over the first few decades of the American era and the one that was most successful in carrying out paramilitary operations in the area of criminal justice administration.

 A new board was seated in early October 1853 after the election of the month prior. More on this third edition of the Board of Supervisors in the next post.

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.

The Los Angeles County Courthouse, 1860-1861

After some seven years in the Rocha Adobe, during which the editorials of 1856 and 1859 decrying the condition of the building were penned, the Los Angeles County Courthouse became the subject of further criticism in 1860.

An article in the 25 February edition of the Los Angeles Star, for example, pointed out that

at the assembling of the County Court yesterday, it was moved by J.R. Scott, Esq. and concurred in by the District Attorney (Edward J.C. Kewen) and other members of the bar, that the Court adjourn, for the reason that the building occupied as the court room is so wholly out of repairs to render it not only unsafe, but exceedingly dangerous, to continue the session therein.

The county Board of Supervisors had, at its meeting on the 9th, appointed a committee of Gabriel Allen, Antonio Franco Coronel and Casildo Aguilar to work with Sheriff Tomás Sánchez to find other quarters.  The urgency became more market, however, when the Star observed that

a part of the roof has fallen in, and the timbers the support the balance of the roof are so worm-eaten that Judge Scott [who was 6 feet 4 inches tall, making him, like Abraham Lincoln, who was the same height, a veritable giant at the time], in illustration of the insecurity of the room, crushed a large handful of them as if they were straw.

Given this, the paper sanguinely suggested that, "it is high time that something was done to secure a decent place for the meeting of the Courts."

The 25 February 1860 issue of the Los Angeles Star contained this short article noting the deplorable condition of the Rocha Adobe as the county court house, including the fact that attorney Jonathan R. Scott, who was a toweing 6'4", could crush ceiling timbers with his hand because of termite damage!

A few weeks later, on 10 March, the latest report of the county Grand Jury was published in the Star, including the admonition that the court house and offices for the sheriff and county clerk

is wholly unsuitable for that purpose.  In fact, the old adobe walls, almost roofless . . . are so completely dilapidated as to render them not only insecure for such purposes, but exceedingly dangerous.

Consequently, by court order, the paper went on

the Sheriff has fitted up a brick building on Main street, which promises to answer the temporary purposes of a court room and offices of the Court.  This arrangement, however, can only be temporary, and is necessarily attended with considerable expense, and inasumuch as a Court House is essential to the administration of the law and the requirements of justice . . . the construction of a suitable building for the purpose would be in accordance with the true principle of economy.

The Grand Jury suggested yet another statute from the state legislature authorizing a ballot measure for a tax levy for $25-30,000 for the building of a new courthouse.  Of course, the previous attempts in 1858 and 1859 for voter approval led to defeats--the latter was particularly overwhelming in the negative with the Board of Supervisors reporting a different result than the papers: 1,766 against and only 162 in favor.

Still, the new home was deemed superior than the Rocha Adobe as the Star observed: "the new court house prepared by the Sheriff, in the Nichols building, has been used since the middle of the week by the Court of Sessions, and gives much satisfaction."  The paper lamented the fact the "the county has not had these improvements placed upon its own property" at the Rocha Adobe.

In fact, the next session of the Grand Jury in early July, according to the 14 July issue of the Star "would strenuously recommend that some means be devised to repair the same, so that it can again be occupied, and thereby save the county the burden of paying rent on other property."

The new quarters consisted of a one-story brick structure erected by former mayor John G. Nichols, who was the subject of a criminal case earlier in the 1850s concerning his alleged profiteering from the use of prisoners for public labor.  Nichols' structure was on the west side of Main Street between Temple and First.  In August 1860, the Board of Supervisors authorized payment to Nichols of $750 for six months' rent on the building.

This excerpt of a Los Angeles County Grand Jury report, printed in the Star's 24 November 1860 edition, called for the building of a new courthouse or "judicious repairs upon the old one" at the Rocha Adobe, which was still owned by the county and being used as a police station house.

In November, however, the Grand Jury had more criticism concerning the leasing of court house facilities in its latest report.  In the 24 November issue of the Star, the jury reported, "the large amount now paid as rent for bulidings for county purposes is suggestive of the necesity of preventing, as soon as possible, this heavy outlay and demand upon our already exhausted treasury."  Deeming the Nichols Building to be "indifferently suited for the purposes required," the jury suggested "the propriety of taking proper steps for the building of a new Court House or the making of judicious repairs upon the old one."  It also stated that it was "urgently necessary for the proper preservation . . . of the county files and records" to secure new furniture for the county clerk.

However, the arrangement to rent the Nichols Building continued until May 1861 when another location, virtually next door, was found for lease.  This will be the subject of the next post.

The Los Angeles County Courthouse, December 1859

Within a few months of the 1856 article in the Los Angeles Star comically lambasting the state of the county courthouse, located in the Rocha Adobe, the California legislature approved the concept of a tax levy on county property holders amounting to 1/2 of 1% of taxable property for the purpose of building a dedicated facility for court operations.  This announcement in April 1857, however, was subject to approval by voters at the county elections and was not followed by any action by local officials to place the issue on the ballot.

The 13 February 1858 edition of the Spanish-language newspaper El Clamor Público disucssed the situation regarding the inadequate building serving as the Los Angeles County Courthouse.

Nearly another year went by before the Spanish-language newspaper, El Clamor Publico, put out an editorial on the existing structure.  In its 13 February 1858 edition, the paper observed the structure's "worm-eaten ceiling: and general deterioration.  Its poor proportions in terms of interior layout and appearance on the exterior warranted the opinion that "the jail is a much better building than this."

Nothing that there was a movement to find a way to build a new court house, the paper criticized the fact the county Board of Supervisors had not acted to put the tax levy proposal to voters and reminded readers that "a notice we published in our previous number, we recommended that they try to secure a new law from the legislature authorizing a loan with this object."

El Clamor Publico concluded that "it is therefore evident that a building for the diverse offices of the county is an indispensable need and we expect our representatives to do everything possible to obtain the approval of a law as we recommended to them."

A portion of an article from the Los Angeles Star, 31 December 1859, discussing an order of District Court  Judge Benjamin I. Hayes to Sheriff Tomás Sánchez to locate new quarters for the Los Angeles County Courthouse.

Sure enough, this was achieved, as the legislature passed another statute in Aujgust 1858 permitting county officials to seek a $25,000 loan, in the form of a bond, rather than a tax levy, for the funds to build a courthouse.  At the county elections held a few weeks later, however, the proposal was narrowly defeated 236-194.

Undaunted, county officials pressed for another attempt in 1859 and the legislature duly followed up with a new statute authorizing voter approval for the courthouse levy.  The sour economy, stung by the national depression that broke out in 1857 as well as the lingering effects of the decline of the Gold Rush during the last few years, brought out a very different mentality from voters.  The September elections saw the court house bond vote deafeated by a resounding 953-32!

Another tack was then taken.  District Court Judge Benjamin Hayes issued an order at the end of the year, as reported in the 31 December 1859 edition of the Star.  Hayes noted that the courtroom in which he presided "is altogether unfit . . . by reason of its want of the proper accomodations for its officers and juries, and the general dilapidation of the house" and observed that the Sheriff had "failed to procue a suitable room, under the previous oder of this Court, for want of sufficient time," 

Consequently, Hayes went on, "it is therefore ordered by the Court, that the Sheriff of Los Angeles county do procure a suitable room in which to hold the session of this Court, and that he also procure a proper jury room, and a room for the Judge's chambers" with the furnishings, fuel, lights and stationery needed for court operations.

In an accompanying editorial, the Star reported that, "the Court house, it is true, is in a dilapidated condition, and when the order was made a stream of water was pouring down each side of the Judge of the Bench."  The paper stated that finding another existing structure for the courthouse "will cost the county probably five or six thousand dollars, and in the present embarrased state of the county finances, this is a very heavy addition to the already overburdened tax-payers."  Clearly, though, it was vital that a new location be found.

The conclusion of the Star article discussing how to deal with Los Angeles County's fiscal doldrums, including the great expense of dealing with criminal cases in the courts.

The Star then offered its views on why the county was in so much debt and led voters to overwhelmingly reject a bond issue to build a new courthouse:  "the answer is to be found in the heavy criminal business of the county . . .  crime must be punished, and that punishment entails enormous expense on the county."

Specifically at issue, according to the paper, was that "it is needless to say that the fees of officers swallow up the income of the county."  Salaries, as set by state statute, were generally pretty low for officeholders, but there was a fee system, in which these officers were paid piecemeal for the filing of various process of service, from arrest warrants to subpoenas to the clerk's writing (by hand, of course) the many documents that were part of court operations.

The Star felt that many of these fees were legitimate, such as in the case of the Sheriff who, for "all extra exertions he may make for the capture of ciminals must be paid out of his own pocket" and then reimbursed by submission to the county for his fees.  The county clerk, too, "is often in attendance on the court a week at a time, besides the labor of making up papers in office hours and after office hours."

The paper reserved particular scorn for the District Attorney, though, noting that this official was allotted an extraordinary salary of $10,000 a year, but "has no duties which . . . should entitle him to a recompnese greater than that of the highest Cabinet officer of the Union."  It was observed that the D.A. was not allowed by state law to charge fees."

Another major factor simply was "from the decrease of the property of the county" during the current economic downturn, "where . . . there were droves of cattle taxable for county purposes there are now but waste and unproductive laws."  Given that revnue was derived from taxable property, but the county was in a seriously depressed state of affairs, the only perceivable result, according to the Star was "a general bankruptcy, or repudiation must ensue."

Cutting back on expenses was one approach to consider, but, "with our criminal docket, and the present system of conducting trials, we see no probability of improvement" other than to "let criminal cases be at once disposed of, and the county be relieved from the enormous burden of officers, witnesses, jurors being required to be in attendance time and again fruitlessly."  To the paper, "this alone would prove a considerable saving to the county."

Obviously, this was not going to happen and, even though the economy continue to worsen in the early years of the 1860s in ways the Star and others in Los Angeles could not imagine at the onset of that decade, there was a solution to the matter of the courthouse.

This will be discussed in the next post.