The Barton Massacre of 1857, Part Nine: The Trial and Lynching of Pancho Daniel

The final major event in the aftermath of the Barton Massacre of 1857 was the capture and trial of co-leader of the gang who committed the depredations: Pancho Daniel.

Daniel was said to have been wounded in the ambush that slaughtered Barton and three members of his posse searching for what was called the Flores-Daniel Gang.  The injury was, evidently, serious enough to put Daniel out of action and he quietly slipped out of the Los Angeles region and headed north.

It was not until just after the new year dawned in 1858 that Daniel was captured by Sheriff John E. Murphy of Santa Clara County.  As reported in the 23 January edition of El Clamor Público, Murphy had received word that Daniel was hiding nearby.  Going to the location that was identified, Murphy found "a Californio or Mexican that was there, but this person said he knew nothing of Daniel's whereabouts, and even that he knew him."

At that, Murphy called out for his companions and, when they walked up, "ordered the hanging of the Mexican, who, at the moment of suffocation, confesed that Pancho Daniel was hiding within a pile of straw very close to where they were."  The sheriff called out to Daniel to surrender "when he [Daniel] stuck his head out of the straw and seeing that there was no way to escape, he surrendered."

It was said that Daniel had three pistols with him when seized and then he was taken to the jail at San Jose and held there until Murphy could bring him down on the next steamer to Los Angeles, where the prisoner arrived on the 19th.  The article concluded that "he was accused of having committed many crimes, and, among these, of having taken part in the deal of Sheriff Barton."

Reporting on the capture of Francisco "Pancho" Daniel, El Clamor Público, 23 January 1858.  Thanks to Paul Bryan Gray for making copies of this paper available.  Click on any image to see enlarged views in a new window.

Daniel was indicted on 10 February before the county's Court of Sessions, headed by County Judge William G. Dryden, easily the most colorful judicial figure of the era, on the charge of murder in the deaths of Barton and his three posse members.  The district attorney representing the state was Ezra Drown, who had been an attorney since his arrival in Los Angeles in 1853, and Daniel's counsel was E.J.C. Kewen, a noted lawyer, orator and Southern firebrand.  Because this was a murder case, it was transferred to the District Court, presided over by Judge Benjamin Hayes, who was nearing the end of his six-year term, assigned number 498, and then continued to the March term.

Daniel was being held in the Los Angeles County jail when, on 15 February, his fellow bandit, Luciano Tapia (a.k.a., Leonardo Lopez) was executed after his conviction for his role in the killing of George Pflugardt.  

On 15 March, Daniel was arraigned and then pled not guilty in the murders of San Juan Capistrano merchant George Pflugardt, for which there was one indictment, and of Charles Baker and Charles Daly, two of Barton's posse members, which were reflected in the second indictment.  A trial date was set for the 22nd.  Kewen then stepped down from his representation of Daniel, for reasons unknown, and Kimball H. Dimmick, stepped in.  Dimmick, who came to California in the Mexican-American War, was alcalde (mayor) of San Jose, a judge and a signer of the California constitution of 1849, before migrating to Los Angeles, where he was a member of the Assembly, a district attorney, and attorney.

When the case came up for trial, Dimmick was "discharged by consent of defendant" and a new attorney, Columbus Sims, a resident and lawyer in town since 1852, took on the defense of Daniel.  A venire (call) for ninety-six jurors had been made, but Sims quickly moved for a change of venue, which Hayes denied.  As the hearing proceeded, twenty-eight jurors were excused and the rest ordered to return the following day.

But, as reported in El Clamor on 27 March, "the accused submitted a petition that the matter be continued until the next sesion of the court, so that there would be time to bring certain witnesses from Santa Clara County who would testify that he was not in Los Angeles County at the time of the crime of which he is accused."  Judge Hayes ruled that "the defendant had given sufficient evidence to grant the time requested, and consequently, continued the matter until the next session on the third week of July."

The next District Court term arrived and the Daniel case came up.  On 19 July, the case was called up, evidently late in the day, and was continued the following day.  Sims was out ill, and Cameron E. Thom, long-time district attorney, was appointed associate counsel and Hayes assigned the case to be heard on the 28th, with a new venire of ninety-six jurors also ordered.

The account of the lynching of Daniel, Los Angeles Star, 4 December 1858.

On the 28th, the case came up, twenty-four jurors were excused for cause and a new twist emerged, as reported in the Los Angeles Star, in its edition of 31 July.  A group of jurors had been called by the sheriff, as required by law, but Sims challenged the selection "on the ground of alleged bias on the part of the sheriff."  A panel of three triers, composed of former county judge Agustín Olvera, merchant Francis Mellus, and merchant John Schumacher, were appointed by Judge Hayes to hear evidence of bias on the part of Sheriff James Thompson, who had recently been voted in as sheriff after a special election, following the on-duty death (the second consecutive after Barton) of William Getman in January.  This was because Thompson was one of the captains of citizen cavalry members seeking the Flores-Daniel Gang after the massacre and was stationed at Simi Pass when Flores was captured and had publicly expounded on Daniel's guilt.

Upon an objection, though it is not known by whom, Olvera, Mellus and Schumacher were discharged "for cause shown" and another trio: ranchers Gerónimo Ybarra and Santiago Carrillo, and carriage maker Daniel McLaren [identified only as "McCleran" in the Star] were appointed by Hayes and accepted by the attorneys.

The triers heard the matter, with witnesses including Kewen, Thompson, jailer Francis Thompson, prominent doctor John S. Griffin  and two other men.  Even though the defense filed an exception to Hayes' charge to the triers, on unknown grounds, the trio were sent off to deliberate with the presence of county coroner J.C. Welsh and "agreed that vias existed—panel discharged."  Hayes then "ordered, that a venire [call] issue for ninety-six persons to serve as jurors, returnable by the Welsh on the 9th of August, at 10 o'clock."  The coroner had, in fact, already conducted court business on behalf of the sheriff, having conducted a "sheriff's sale" of the Rancho Palos Verdes by order from Hayes in March.

Yet, when the court reconvened on 9 August, Sims was ready with another maneuver.  After Welsh  returned a list of ninety-six jurors he summoned to the court, Sims challenged the coroner on what the Star described as "implied bias" of some unstated type.  Unknown triers heard this latest accusation with witnesses including Drown, Kewen, Welsh and a fourth man, upon which "the Court finds that said bias does exist," as reported by the Star.  This finding disqualified Welch from performing the role of selecting jurors, the group he summoned were discharged and the case continued to the 10th.  At that time, on a motion from Sims and an order by Hayes, the case, once more, was continued until the next term in November.

Meantime, Hayes ran for a second six-year term as county judge and his competitor was none other than Sims.  The election results, published on 4 September, showed Hayes trouncing Sims 1229-209, but whether the Daniel case and any public anger at Sims for his creative defense strategy were factors cannot be known.

On 15 November, reported the Star twelve days later, the case was called and Hayes set it for trial on the 22nd.  Drown motioned that Welsh be ordered to call another ninety-six jurors to appear the next day, but then, the paper noted, "coroner resigned, and Court appointed an Elisor," this being a term for someone who acted in lieu of the sheriff or coroner.  This was Manuel F. Coronel, whose father Ygnacio was a former common (city) council member and whose brother Antonio was an assesor, council member, and mayor of Los Angeles and later treasurer of California.  Manuel went on, from 1869-71, to represent Los Angeles in the state Assembly.

A portion of El Clamor Publico's coverage and editorial of the Daniel lynching, 4 December 1858.

Sims returned to his playbook and ran the same attack: accusing Coronel of bias.  Hayes then called Kewen, attorney and future council member and District Court Judge Murray Morrison, and prominent Californio Juan Padilla, to be triers.  This time, fifteen witnesses were called, and after a two full days, "the Elisor was declared, on Friday morning, free from bias."

Then, another tack was taken by Sis who filed a motion for a change of venue.  From two o'clock until the closing of court for the day, arguments were made, after which "te Court granted the motion, and the trial of Daniel is transferred to Santa Barbara county."  Notably, the Star, while praising Drown for his "energy, fidelity and perseverence" while he "ably sustained the cause of the prosecution" avoided crediting Sims for his handiwork, instead noting that Cameron Thom "projected a novel and skilful course, which has proved successful."  Years later, as district attorney, Thom was on the other side of the bar, prosecuting the cases of nine men accused of involvement in the Chinese Massacre of October 1871.

With the knowledge that the Daniel trial was being moved to Santa Barbara and fueled by the frustration felt after the many delays in the case, a group of citizens acted.  According to the 4 December edition of El Clamor, the jailer, Francis Carpenter, stated that, as he was leaving early in the morning to do his usual shopping for supplies, he was confronted by a mob and forced to yield his keys.  After he ran to find Judge Hayes, he returned to find Daniel hung from the crossbeam of the jailyard gate.

The paper said that a witness "declared that the death of this unfortunate was one of the most brutal examples that could be."  It was said the rope used was too thick and the gate not high enough to allow for a drop that would break Daniel's neck so that "he suffocated in the midst of the most horrifying despair."  The witness said that when he arrived the body was still twitching, but that he could not identify the ringleaders.

El Clamor went out of its way to say that it was not defending Daniel, calling him "one of the worse evildoers who has existed as a shame of humanity."  But, it went on, "if we have a duly constituted government and laws to obey and respect, why do we avail ourselves of violence and brutal force?"  Moreover, it went on to note that Daniel was a miserable and defenseless victim of those looking to "destroy public tranquility."

To the ringleaders, the paper stated, "Daniel was an assassin . . . and justice was too tardy with its rulings--so then, there is no sense of guilt to take him and hang him!"  Asking, "what is the result of these rationalizations?" El Clamor answered that it was "for them, in place of one type of crime, there was committed one larger."  Observing that "the death of Pancho Daniel does not merit the word 'lynching'," the paper claimed that, rather than represent the larger community, the killing of Daniel was the result of "a few men gathered for the sole purpose of perpetrating an unprecedented act of violence and cruelty."

Rising in its indignation, El Clamor went on:

Town of Los Angeles!  Bow your head in humiliation, and confess that in your time is here sacrificed prisoners without a word of defense!  There is no sensitivity, no emotion, on the homicidal breast, which hears the tearful appeal of an unfortunate who will expire on an ignominious gallows, asking for the consolations of religion, or wanting to see his wife or his young children!

Noting that Los Angeles was a place favored by nature and material progress, here was another instance in which "it is hoped that the reputation of the country is not tarnished by such a dark blot."  Moreover, the paper claimed, "We are among the first to say to the town: patience and hope!"  It asked "if a criminal of another nationalty falls into the hands of justice, will those who carried off Pancho Daniel give evidence that they are impartial with criminals?"

Observing that "almost all of the citizens of this county regarded Daniel as a criminal and this makes it less horrifying that revenge has been taken on him," the paper concluded by aserting that "we thought that they had seen the pernicious effects of lynchings."  Without equality of the law, the community becomes "governed by the will of a few individuals."  In such a circumstance, El Clamor exclaimed, "raise high the banner of anarchy and treason."

By contrast, as usual, the Star was far more sanguine in its reports, also on 4 December.  It professed that, on the day of Daniel's lynching, "the good people of our city were somewhat astonished on waking up from their peaceful slumbers, by the rumor that Pancho Daniel was then hanging by the neck from the cross beam of the gate of the county jail yard."

Stating that it was "probably a committee acting on behalf of a larger body of citizens" that perpetrated the hanging while Sheriff Thompson was out of town, the paper matter of factly reported the confrontation with Carpenter and his yielding of the keys and the fact that Daniel was led "to mount an office stool" which was knocked from underneath him.  For the Star, the shock was that, "as the morning cleared, it revealed the terrible spectacle of a human body hanging dead."

It claimed the citizens who had gathered to see "the body executed in so quiet and mysterious a manner" dispersed and that, only a half hour later, one would not have thought that "so fearful a tragedy had been enacted in our midst."  There was a vague allusion to "some feeling [that] was exhibited during the day, but nothing to indicate that the respectable portion of the Californians were dissatisfied with the result."

While tame in comparison to the expostulations of El Clamor, this editorial in the Star marked a turning point in the English-language press's views on popular justice, 4 December 1858.

However, an editorial in the same edition did mark a noted, if somewhat muted, change in attitude by the Star about lynching.  Writing that the event was something "which we cannot permit to pas without notice," the paper stated that "it was the execution without the sanction or form of law, of a fellow being; one who—even admitting his guilt—was entitled, by the constitution, to the benefit of a fair and impartial trial.

While the paper maligned that "technicalities of law" which "may have been taken advantage of, to defeat the ends of justice," it was asserted that the evidence was such that "we have no doubt that justice would have eventually been meted out to him, and the majesty of the law vindicated."

The editorial continued:

We cannot express too strongly our disapprobation of this act.  At the same time, we have no desire to give expression to harsh or exciting language on this occasion.  The deed has been done.  It has, we admit, met with the general approval of the people; but we must nevertheless, give expression to our utter disapproval of mob law . . . if we are to have anarchy and confusion prevail, let the announcement be made, so that all may take warning . . . We had hoped that the good sense of the people had long since discovered the pernicious effects of such exhibitions.   We had hoped that all looked to the laws for the punishment of evil doers; and that the day of mob law had passed away.  But we were mistaken.

The lynching of Daniel, the piece went on. "will reflect disgrace upon the community, which years will not obliterate.  Our reputation abroad was none of the brightest, as a law-abiding community; there will now be a foundation for such charges."  Noting that it had no sympathy whatever for Daniel and certain that justice would have resulted from his trial, the Star concluded:

We had no right to turn executioner and no desire to soil ourselves with the blood of our fellow [being.]

It was hardly the righteous indignation of El Clamor, but the feelings of the Star did reveal a market change from attitudes expressed by the English-language press in the nearly eight years since the first issue of the Star made its debut in May 1851.  This also reflected a growing change in sentiment more broadly in the United States during the 1850s, which was the apogee of popular justice in the nation.  A slow, but growing confidence in policing, the courts, and the general administration of justice, along with what might be called "the civilizing process" (Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature is now being read in this context), were part of the transformation.  Vigilantism and lynching were still to be resorted to on occasions in Los Angeles County until the mid-1870s, but they were less frequent and the administration of justice did improve.

But, at the end of 1858, that transition was still very much in its early stages, as evidenced by a statement written in the first book of the Register of Actions for the District Court as he ended the listing for the Pancho Daniel case:

The Gentleman who was defendant in this case, was accidentally hung, through the carelessness of some American citizens on Tuesday morning, November 30th A.D. 1858.

Barton Massacre Podcast from KUCI Radio, Part One

Last Wednesday afternoon, I sat down with Ellen Bell, host of KUCI's Irvine History Today to talk about the Barton Massacre of 1857.  The first of two parts aired yesterday from 4 to 4:30 p.m., though the public station's signal strength is pretty much localized to the Irvine area.

However, a podcast of that first segment is available through Ellen's blog of the same name and can be accessed here.

The discussion ranged from the specifics of the incident, in which county sheriff James Barton and three member of his posse were gunned down by the Flores-Daniel Gang, to what the Irvine area was like 150 years ago, to the racial tension, fear, and revenge that drove those who responded to the killings as they hunted down gang members, and more.

Ellen had attended my presentation on the Barton massacre to the Orange County Historical Society about a month ago involving a lecture and group discussion with over 60 participants and invited me for the interview.

The second part will air next Wednesday the 9th at 4 p.m., if you happen to be close enough to the campus at UC Irvine to pick up that signal.

Otherwise, head over to Ellen's blog to hear the podcast!

Meanwhile, we're nearing the end of the series on this blog about the massacre with the next post concerning the trial and lynching of Francisco "Pancho" Daniel, so check back for that!

The Barton Massacre of 1857, Part Seven: An "Anonymous" El Clamor Público Editorial

In the midst of the increasing excesses of popular justice resulting from the late January 1857 murders of Los Angeles County Sheriff James Barton and three members of his posse hunting the Flores-Daniel gang of bandits, the gap between the coverage and editorializing of the English-language Los Angeles Star and the Spanish-language El Clamor Público widened.

Occasionally, as noted previously, earlier instances of lynching were cited, generally by El Clamor to put some context to the current spate of executions visited upon gang members and others by locals.  An interesting example of an editorial to appear in that paper was on 21 February and was titled "Cipriano Sandoval: A Reminiscence."

The unnamed author began his piece by explaining his reversion to an event that happened almost five years prior, "as showing how much caution is necessary in popular movements against crime, and when the movers are of the soundest heads and the best hearts, let us mention a fact now almost forgotten in our history."

That fact had to do with the late 1852 murder of Joshua H. Bean, who was widely known for his role as a state militia general in the widespread campaign against a revolt led by Chief Antonio Garra of the Cupeño Indians in San Diego County.  After that effort ended, Bean relocated to San Gabriel, where he operated a saloon in the shadow of the mission.

One night, Bean was shot to death and in the shadowy investigation that followed, it was claimed by a local woman, said to be the lover of legendary bandit, Joaquín Murieta, that the perpetrator was Cipriano Sandoval.  A popular meeting convicted Sandoval for the murder and he was lynched along with a pair of other suspects in Los Angeles.  This incident will be covered in detail in a later post here.

The forgotten fact noted by the editorialist was accompanied by the statement that

Of seven persons who have been hung on Fort Hill, or elsewhere, during the last seven years, by the people of Los Angeles, without legal authority—one was clearly innocent [original italics] of the crime with which he was charged. . . The name of this unfortunate man was Cipriano Sandoval.

Continuing on, the writer observed that Sandoval "was a simple, ignorant, obscure man who had the misfortune to be found at San Gabriel—where he lived soberly and worked industriously at this trade."  Referring to Bean's murder, the author then claimed that "the Indian women of that pueblito pointed to another as the real author of the deed; and many judicious men thought they had no motive to lie."

As it turned out, using Indian testimony in matters of capital cases in court was forbidden by statute, but this would not have been the case, obviously, in a so-called "popular tribunal," or citizen's court.  Still, the "trial" held for Sandoval did not, evidently, include any Indian women testifying before the citizen jury.

Strangely, the editorial then continued with a sentence starting with "It happened that . . ." before the text dissolved into nearly three full lines of ellipses.  When the article resumed, it was to remark that "it is terrible to reflect that the wretched shoemaker, Cipriano, was hurried to his end, by the side of two alleged murderers [for other crimes] . . ."

A portion of an unattributed editorial from El Clamor Público on the 1852 lynching of Cipriano Sandoval that was connected to the excesses wrought at San Gabriel on several men, including Diego Navarro, who may have been the corollary to Sandoval in the mind of the writer:  District Court judge Benjamin Hayes.  Thanks to Paul Bryan Gray for providing microfilmed copies of this paper.

Meanwhile, the writer went on, Sandoval's demise took place "amid the cheerful congratulations lavished on one whose better lot it was to have rich and influential friends."  But, this shield was only effective for so long as "the death-bed lamentations of this last, not long after, revealed the whole truth, if it was not sufficiently known before."

The author then turned to religious feeling, stating that "the main authors in that tragedy [may] hopefully be forgiven" and the addressed the "eternally just God" whose designs are "inscrutable," so that "remunderation does not belong to man, but remains in your mighty hand!"  As for the "punishment of the innocent" like Sandoval, this signified "the triumph of proud and powerful crimes" and led to the conclusion that "this is justice in this world" which represented a "great and solemn mystery!"

Returning to the present circumstance of the lynching of Juan Flores, the editorialist noted that

there was a singular propriety, although not intended, in changing the spot of execution, when the seventh [lynching victim in the town's history] was released to eternity last Saturday, for consecrated was the ground on which had fallen the blood of innocence

In other words, according to this writer, Flores was executed on precisely the same spot as Sandoval.  To "all of which have a heart susceptible of the most tender of sensibilities," the editorial concluded, "may they turn to the barren brow of that fatal hill, [and] let them spill a tear, not without a prayer, for poor SANDOVAL.   May he rest in peace! [original italics and capitalization]"

Being that El Clamor Público was owned, edited and written mainly by its teenage prodigy, Francisco P. Ramirez, it would natural to conclude that this passionate indictment of popular justice was penned by him.  It was not.

Instead, the writer was none other than the district court judge, Benjamin Hayes.  In volume 43 of his extensive scrapbooks of material collated over his many years in southern California, much of which concerned crime, criminal justice and Hayes' years as an attorney and judge and which is now housed at the Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, the jurist wrote:

It has always been a “question,” as to the author of the death of Gen. Bean.  None of the Californians ever believed, that Cipriano Sandoval was guilty.  The subject was somewhat revived in the year 1857, during the excitement ensuing upon the murder of Sheriff Barton.  Among other articles then written by me, in Spanish, was the annexed in Spanish—a translation of which also appeared in the San Francisco Herald.

Though he doesn't specify who the Cipriano Sandoval was in the aftermath of the Barton killings, it seems almost certain that it was one the men killed in the gross excesses of vigilantism at San Gabriel, most probably Diego Navarro.

Hayes then added a marginal note in the scrapbook: “I have added a brief review of the cases of “Lynch Law” up to 1857,  when the celebrated “Barton” excitement occurred."  This editorial appeared in the 14 March edition of El Clamor Público and will be the subject of a post coming soon.

The Barton Massacre of 1857, Part Five

With the killing of five men at San Gabriel raising new controversies over the degree of "popular justice" administered by citizens in the days following the killing of Sheriff James R. Barton and three members of his posse hunting the Flores-Daniel Gang, the situation accelerated further in the first days of February.

On 2 February, a group of five men led by Ezekiel H. Rubottom of El Monte (which in just several years of existence became known for its "Monte Boys," residents quick to resort to rought justice) rode out from Los Angeles on what the Los Angeles Star referred to, in its edition of 14 February, as "an expedition to Santa Barbara."  A couple of the men were left at the mission in Ventura, while the other three rode on to Santa Barbara.  According to the paper, "information was given to the people at the Mission that certain of the gang of robbers would arrive that night in town" and a lookout was stationed, while a scout went out to search the area.

Los Angeles Star, 14 February 1857.

The Star then reported that, "shortly after, two men approached, diring on a horse, and on meeting the spy, asked him if there was any excitment in town, to which he answered there was not and they continued on their course."  As the duo moved on, the spy, said to be a Californio, called out, "here they are, taken them," at which both men jumped off their horses and fled.  One was captured, while the other managed to escape.

The man who was seized "proved to be José Jesus Espinosa, one of the gang who murdered Sheriff Barton and his party."  As matter-of-factly as can be, the Star simply continued that "he was tried by the people and condemned to death.  He was accordingly executed."   The paper reported that Espinosa issued a full confession, which was published with a letter by the mission priest, Father Domingo Serrano.  These documents were also reprinted in El Clamor Público, in its edition of the 21st.

El Clamor Público, 21 February 1857.  Thanks for Paul Bryan Gray for making a microfilm of this paper available.

Serrano, in his missive, stated that Espinosa was a "native of Monterey River," the old name for the Salinas River, which flows through the Salinas Valley, and noted that the condemned was "aged about seventeen or eighteen years."  The priest wrote the letter, he said,

considering the benefit which may result to the numerous unfortunates who are imprisoned upon suspicion of robberies and murders recently committed in or about Los Angeles, by divulging some part of the confession . . . that it might serve to quiet and tranquilize the feeling of the community which is much excited by the belief of numerous secret companies or societies . . . I have accordingly with deep solicitude labored to obtain his consent in the presence of witnesses, that I might reveal a part of what I had heard in confession, and that it all might be substantiated by him as true

This extraordinary epistle was followed by the confession, or at least the part as shared by Padre Serrano.  Espinosa's mea culpa began with his awareness that "after a few hours I shall have ceased to exist" it was time "to give a strict account of all the actions of my life."  He then stated that

we, the thieves and murderers, are but ten persons, namely: Antonoi Maria Vareles, or Chino; Andres Fontes; Juan Catabo; Juan Flores; Santos --------; Santiago Silvas, Leonardo Lopez, and the remaining one which I only know as the "Ardillero," and who I confess is innocent, as he joined us after we had committed all the crimes.  I also affirm that our organization dates back one month, or [a] little less, in which time we have committed four murders near San Juan [Barton and his posse], and one murder in that place [George Pflugardt].  We have stolen from three stores in San Juan, taking away goods and money, which with that taken from the murdered persons, I think might exceed $120, and about ten horses.  This is the truth, which I sign with a cross before my name, as I cannot write.

Meanwhile, as Rubottom and his two companions rode back from Santa Barbara, the Star continued, "they proceeded to the house of a man named Berreyessa [Berryesa], whom they arrested and brought to trial."  It was observed that Berryesa had, in Santa Clara in northern California, been tried and convicted there and "had been actually hung up, but being cut down before life became extinct, the body was given over to his friends who effected his resuscitation.  The mark of the rope still remained on his neck."

El Clamor Público, 21 February 1857.

Apparently, this version was not the case.  Instead, it has been alleged that Berryesa, in July 1854, was taken prisoner by a posse and a rope placed around his neck for questioning.  Two of this brothers were killed in the next couple of years and Berryesa then relocated to Ventura.  The Star reported that "since then, he committed another murder.  These facts having been proved satisfactorily, he was also condemned and executed."  A third man was arrested some fifteen miles east of Ventura because he was "in a rather suspicious position" and, though this unnamed individual was jailed, nothing further came about.

As we will soon see, the bitterness between the two Los Angeles newspapers, the Star and El Clamor Público intensified as their very different perspectives on the actions of citizens in dispensing justice, especially at San Gabriel, were displayed for readers.  The next post, however, takes us to another example of summary justice--this time involving one of the captains of the bandit gang, Juan Flores.

The Barton Massacre of 1857, Part Four

In the aftermath of the brutal slayings in January 1857 of Los Angeles County Sheriff James R. Barton and three members of a posse led by him to find members of the Flores-Daniel Gang in what is now Orange County, a coordinated effort involving well over 100 men scoured the Santa Ana Mountains and passes leading to and from the Los Angeles region.

A number of men were captured and executed by members of the organized citizen calvaries in the days after the murders, but there were also some gross excesses that took place.  The most notorious occurred in San Gabriel on Thursday the 29th.  The Los Angeles Star reported that

On Thursday last, Mr. Cyrus Sanford, of the Mission [San Gabriel], was attacked by Miguel Soto and two others.  Mr. Stockton came to his assistance, and the fight continued for some time pretty sharp, in close quarters.  Sanford shot Soto in the thigh, and Soto shot Sanford’s horse four times in the breast.  Soto, being disabled, left his horse, and ran afoot to take refuge in a marsh near at hand.  He managed to cover up his body with mud and weeds.  At this time some of the citizens from Monte., Messrs. Houstin, King, and Ward came up, and set fire to the weeds and burned them off the ground.  This exposed the position of the crafty robber, when one of the party, Mr. King, we believe, fired and shot Soto through the heart.  The head of the robber was then cut off and taken to the Monte, where it was recognized by Mr. W. H. Peterson, as the head of Miguel Soto, who had been examined before Justice Sackett for the robbery and attempt at murder of Mr. Twist some time ago. [there is a case, dated 23 April 1857, for four men, Juan Gonzales and Benito Juarez—identified above as being part of the Daniel/Flores gang—being among them, along with Eusebio Gonzales and Miguel Blanco—all were acquitted.]

The Star was provided information that "Soto . . . had with him . .  a gun, recognized as one lent by F[rancis] Mellus, Esq. to Sheriff Barton, previous to starting on his ill-fated expedition."

Los Angeles Star, 31 January 1857.

In a separate article from the same edition, the paper stated, “a number of arrests were made at the time by the people of the Mission of San Gabriel, who afterwards organized a court and tried the prisoners, and sentenced them to be hung.”  This included Juan Valenzuela, Pedro Lopez, and Diego Navarro.  “The rope having broke in the course of execution, the men were led out and shot dead.”

“Thus four of the banditti who recently committed the murder of Sheriff Barton and his three associates, have expiated their offences with their lives—and others will follow.”  Yet none of these four men were identified earlier in that day's Star as being members of the Flores/Daniel gang.

Separately, Miguel Blanco, while in jail, confessed that Soto, shot at the Mission, was concerned in the Twist robbery and confessed his own involvement and that of the party.   Juan Gonzalez, who may have been the same man of that name who escaped with Juan Flores from San Quentin in October 1856, and Benito Juarez, were in the paper's list of those involved in the Barton murders.

On 23 April, Blanco, Juarez, Gonzalez and the latter's brother, Eusebio, were tried in the county's Court of Sessions, on the charge of stealing $1000 and other items from Twist, who was a Los Angeles citizen militia leader and ex-Santa Barbara County sheriff, and acquitted of the charges.  If Juan Gonzalez was the same escapee from state prison, though, he was returned on 24 July.

As for El Clamor Público, its take on the San Gabriel killings was entirely different from that of the Star.  Its edition of 31 January reported that "last Thursday, there were four individuals arrested suspected of being accomplices in the late murders; three of them were hung and a fourth killed by gunfire."  The paper then criticized the fact that "a company of armed men, under the pretext of being empowered to summaril execute criminals threw themselves like voracious lions on some unhappy victims of their wild appetite, and they have sacrificed them in outrageous scaffolds."

El Clamor Público, 31 January 1857.

In listing the names of the four dead men, El Clamor focused on Navarro, providing a statement from his father that the young man was applying brea (tar) on the roof of the family house and came down when several armed men approached and then seized Navarro and took him to the spot of execution.  It was noted that the rope broke when Navarro was swung up, but that "the bloody mob, most of them drunken" then shot and mortally wounded him and that, Navarro's wife, a "heroic woman," took the dying Navarro in her arms and held him until he expired.

The paper concluded this initial coverage with some "Observations," including the fact that here was an instance in which "authorities do not comply with their responsibilities" and although a community might rise up "there is no reason for sacrificing innocent victims in a furor."  The editorial went on to note that "In all countries that call themselves civilized, there is a distinction between virtue and vice, but never has it been seen that some will pay for one with the lack of the other."

In coming editions, the equally sharp distinctions between the two papers in the analysis of what happened at San Gabriel became more manifest and heated.

In its 7 February number, the Star decried the "false account of events" propagated by its rival and stated "we deem it necessary to give a correct statement of facts as they were."  The paper reported that Cyrus Sanford and two other men were riding near the mission when William M. Stockton, a nearby rancher, rode towards the trip "with a Mexican, while another Mexican approached them from one side," this pair evidently traveling together until Stockton met up with one and the other rode off to the side.  When Sanford and his companions were in view, Stockton yelled out "look for that man, he's a thief."  The two Mexicans then allegedly fired at Sanford and another man, said to be Navarro rode away and was overtaken at his home.  Asked why he fled, Navarro was said to have made up a story about seeking money from one of the pair of Mexicans that owed him.  Soto was supposedly one of these two and ran off into the swamp where he was then killed by one of the King brothers of El Monte.

Los Angeles Star, 7 February 1857.

From there "a general search took place, and a large number of suspected persons were taken prisoners—among them Pedro Lopez and Juan Valenzuela."  A popular tribunal was held and it was reported that among the jurymen "were some natives" and "a fair and impartial rial was given them."  As proof of this, it was stated that "a large number were released."  Navarro was said to be "of general bad character, and dangerous to be permitted to live in any peaceable community, and to be connected with thieving parties."  Valenzuela was determined to be "an old offender" guilty of involvement "in serveral robberies and attempted burglaries" including a recent theft of sheep.  Lopez was accused of being a thief of a mule and "maintaining himself by cock-fighting and cattles-stealing."  

Because of these accusations and associations, "each of these men were sentenced to die, and they were executed."  As to the claim that Navarro died in the arms of his wife, it "never had any truth in it, but is one of that class articles which has too often, for the last year, appeared in that incendiary publication called El Clamor Publico."

In its turn, that paper, in its edition of the 7th, observed that, even "if all this certain that he [Miguel Soto] was a criminal, his death does not stop being terrible."  It related that the firing of the swamp where he was hidden caused Soto, "in the agony of his pain" to "in desperation dig a pit with his hands to bury himself."  Then, he was killed and "his head was cut off and the body remained abandoned for food for the animals and birds."  It went on to suggest that "Evil be a man and having committed crimes that are detestable to the eyes of the community, the noble heart always takes pity on what he feels for humanity and he does not pursue them as if they were the same as so many animals of the field."

El Clamor Público, 7 February 1857.

A separate editorial in El Clamor claimed that "a general feeling of indignation has been excited amongst our fellow citizens concerning the executions that took place in San Gabriel of the four individuals suspected of being accomplices of the thieves" who killed Barton and his posse members.  It further stated that "recent revelations have declared they were not gulty of the crimes attributed to them and if at some time they had done things that merited the exemplary punishment given to them, we are ignorant of it."  Declaiming to "antagonize among the races that live here," the paper wrote that "our object is the cause of understanding justice, so that all of this county's inhabitants can live in more tranquil circumstances and in better harmony than before."

Still, El Clamor decried the fact that public vindication had to be satisfied and called for an acceptable reason was needed for "those four people who perished so ignominiously."  It ended by stating that "what we ask is what we believe is very just" pertaining "to the rights of equality, justice and liberty that the laws confer on us, as having the privilege of being born here."

The rhetoric would only intensify as will be shown in the next post.  

The Barton Massacre of 1857, Part Three

As the end of January 1857 approached and within a week of the murder of Los Angeles County Sheriff James R. Barton and three members of his posse, Los Angeles constables Charles Baker and William Little and volunteer Charles Daly, the manhunt for the killers from the Flores-Daniel Gang intensified.

Reported mainly in the Los Angeles Star, with some coverage of El Clamor Público in their editions of 7 February, the efforts centered mainly on the Santa Ana Mountains in what today is eastern and central Orange County.  As noted previously, there were several companies of volunteer cavalry formed in Los Angeles, but, in this location, there appeared to have been two major groups, one of about two-dozen men from El Monte and another of about fifty Californios, led by Andrés Pico.  It was also said that there were over forty Indian guides employed, because they best knew the rough territory of the mountains.  Pico was also reported to have developed the plan of pursuit that was adopted by everyone.

Initially, these two were separate in the searches, but, on Friday the 30th, when Pico made it known by messenger that he was guarding a canyon where it was believed the gang was hiding--this being Santiago Canyon, the El Monte contingent hastened to unite with the Californios.  Indian scouts, meanwhile, not only located a contingent of bandits, but managed to get one of them, Antonio María Varela, to turn on his fellow bandits and arrange a means for their exposure and capture.

An initial attempt to pounce upon the bandits was foiled by weather, but then the next morning, another foray proved more successful.  Flores did see the coming posse and began to scale a mountain while forcing Varela to move ahead of him at gunpoint.  When some El Monteans arrived to reinforce the Californios, Varela was able to escape and surrender himself to Tomás Sánchez, one of Pico's lieutenants.

Part of the Los Angeles Star coverage of the pursuit of the Flores-Daniel Gang, 7 February 1857.

As Pico and his men followed Flores and a few bandits up a steep mountain, a message was sent to the Americans who were camped at Trabuco Pass, but hastened to join Pico.  What then transpired was remarkable for its daring by the desperate bandits seeking any means of escape.  According to the Star, Flores, Espinosa and López (Tapia) "slid their horses down a precipice to a kind [of] shelf about fifty feet below, where they abandoned them and scaped down a precipitous ledge of rocks, about 500 feet high, by aid of the brush growing on its side."  From there, the trip made off on an adjacent mountain, concealed by thick chapparal.

The trail was picked up, however, by an El Monte force and were spotted, though the trio "attempted to evade them by hiding in a cave in the cañada."  A gun battle erupted and one El Monte man was wounded, but sheer force led to the surrounding of the three and they were captured.

While this was done, Francisco Ardillero was caught by El Monte men as he tried to flee down the mountain.  Juan Silvas, who could not bring himself to follow Flores, López and Espinosa on their reckless, but successful, downhill trek, turned himself in to Pico's men.  Notably, Pico, bothered by the escape of Flores, Espinosa and López (Tapia), made the decision to summarily execute Silvas and Ardillero.  They were hung from a tree and it is said that this "hanging tree" still stands on the property of the Irvine Company (Irish native James Irvine bought up huge tracts of land during the drought-stricken doldrums of the mid-1860s for pennies per acre.)

The hangings of Ardillero and Silvas met with very little comment from either paper initially, with the Star barely making mention at all, while the report in El Clamor was matter-of-fact, observing that "it was resolved to execute them so that they would not be able to easily escape."  The paper did, without explanation, refer to "the famous Güero Ardillero," whose true name was never revealed.

Coverage of the lynching of Juan Silvas and Francisco Ardillero, El Clamor Público, 7 February 1857.

Whether the Flores-Daniel gang consisted of some fifty men or considerably less when committing their depredations at San Juan, there had clearly been a dispersal of a good portion of their number, if only a half-dozen remained holed up in the mountains.  It was stated that Daniel, Andrés Fontes, Santos, and the man known then as Piquinini, had hightailed it to Los Angeles after leaving the Santa Ana Mountains.

Once the initial capture took place, it was decided to form three groups, with Pico taking his Californios and the Americans divided into two.  After a two days and one day, presumably meaning Sunday the 1st of February, some portion of the posses, apparently members of the El Monte contingent, "came in sight of the robbers who had escaped."  These three men then hightailed it for another location with a three-mile chase and some shooting involved with just four of the pursuers after the trio.  When the remainder of the hunters arrived and surrounded the hunted, these latter "seeing their position, laid down their arms and surrendered."

The Star reported that Flores had Sheriff Barton's watch and a cache of arms "and other plunder" was recovered.  Then, the prisoners were removed some five miles from the location of capture to the home of Teodocio Yorba on the Rancho Lomas de Santiago, in the hills of what is now Tustin and Irvine.  Camping there, the posse tied up the prisoners and had them guarded, but "from the negligence of the guard, the prisoners effected their escape."  Although a search was effected, it was fruitless and the pursuers returned to El Monte to resupply and reorganize, but on Wednesday evening, it was learned that another capture was accomplished.

The lauding of Andrés Pico and his Mounted Californians from the Star, 7 February 1857.

In the Abel Stearns Collection of the Huntington Library, Art Galleries and Botanical Gardens, there are a few surviving letters written in Spanish by Andrés and Pío Pico to John S. Griffin, who oversaw the efforts to capture the bandits, and Stearns.  One letter from Andrés to Stearns, dated 29 January, noted that "today at eight in the morning I arrived at this rancho [San Joaquin] with a force under my command numbering 32 men" and that several others were recruited from the ranch, with Pico ready to pursue the "malvados [evildoers]."

On 2 February, Andrés wrote to Griffin to give him an update "of all my operations, all of which I have told to all the Americans that accompanied me in these efforts."  Pico expressed the hope that they would quickly put an end to the manhunt as "I am tired."

From his "Ranchito" in present-day Whittier, Pío wrote to Griffin on 1 February, that "at 8 o'clock in the evening  . . . in Santiago [Canyon] they caught three more of the thieves, these are Juan Flores, Jesus Espinosa and Leonardo Lopez.  Nothing more came of this encounter other than that one of the Americans had a small injury in his arm."

In its coverage of the 7th, the Star did take time to compliment the citizens of San Gabriel and El Monte, as well as Californios for their labors in pursuing the bandits, but that 

the exertions of the Californian company, under Don Andres Pico, are the theme of all tongues.  Laboring under many disadvantages, besides but hardly armed [with lances, it was stated], they bravely set out on the arduous duty and well and nobly have they accomplished it.  They have earned for themselves the respect and admiration of the whole community.  It is pleasant to find that the only emulation among the Californian and American citizens is, who can best act for and defend, their common country.  Thus may it be.

Meanwhile, James Thompson, who became sheriff after Barton's murder, led over twenty-five men on a search to San Gabriel and then headed northwest through modern Pasadena, La Cañada, and Tujunga before emerging in the San Fernando Valley and making their way to Encino.  Detachments of volunteers and army personnel from the new Fort Tejon were dispatched to guard passes like San Fernando and Simi and roads leading north towards the Central Valley and west towards Ventura and Santa Barbara.

It was Simi that a bedraggled, famished and thirsty Juan Flores emerged from a concealed place in search of water, where two Fort Tejon soldiers spotted and then arrested him.  He had only a worn-out horse, no weapon and just a bit of dried beef for sustenance.  While he tried to pass himself off as a laborer from Mission San Fernando, he was recognized when brought to a camp.  Two others assumed to be part of the gang managed to slip through Simi when guards left their posts to seek forage for their horses.

Flores stated that, after he, Espinosa and López (Tapía) escaped from the Santa Ana Mountains, they had separated and he had not seen the other two, it appears that the two men who escaped through Simi were his compatriots.  Moreover, on the way with Thompson to Los Angeles, Flores claimed that it was Daniel who was the head of the bandit gang.  He had been wounded in his determined scramble down the steep slopes of the Santa Anas when he fell and his gun went off, striking his right arm.  Flores requested that he see a clergyman and write to his mother, before making his confession and making "ready for his fate."

The Star reported that Flores was calm while riding into Los Angeles until he got a look at the crowd waiting for him when he got to the jail and begged Thompson not to heave him.  He was then confined in a cell and clamped in irons "to await the action of the people."  Meantime, Espinosa and Daniel were nowhere to be found.

El Clamor Público, reporting on Flores's confinement, noted that he was calm and "seems unfeeling to the destiny that he expects."  It also stated that a "multitude of curious persons crowded to see so brave a man of whom so many daring feats are counted."  Evidently, one of the visitors asked him how he felt being a thief, to which the bandit coolly replied, "become a thief and you will know."  Otherwise, the paper observed, Flores was "asked a variety of questions and he responded to them with the greatest tranquility and courtesy."

In discussing the shared efforts of Americans and Californios in the manhunt for Flores and his compatriots, El Clamor noted that

it is a worthy thing to congratulate the good harmony that reigned during the campaign between the Californios, under the command of Don Andrés Pico and the citizens of the Monte . . .  In all of the efforts and adversities in which they were found, they helped each other with the greatest of frankness and cordiality.

The paper continued by noting that "by these actions, the Californios have vindicated their honor" and quieted the criticism of those who would identofy them with those they pursued.  The paper even expressed the hope that the success of the hunt would limit the motives of some to complain about the deficiency of the law and the "indolence of judges," while criminals would "choose another, more attractive place to exercise their abilities."  It suggested that Los Angeles, being "one of the most beautiful cities in California," with its "vineyards, fields and ranches inviting to enterprising men." could now expect a new era of tranquility and a growing, flourishing and happy population, in contrast to the murders and other crimes recently committed.

El Clamor was also very complimentary of the late sheriff, devoting a lengthy 14 February editorial to "this gentleman [who] was one of that energetic class of Americans who lived among us before the [Mexican-American] war."  Moreover, "the Californios knew him very well, and enjoyed his esteeem; and in his heart, we believe, was a friend of them, while he never lost his character and dignity as an American."  The paper noted that he was known as an industrious farm laborer and carpenter, but for four years was the city marshal and was a "model of a pure integrity and of a recognized value, and always distinguished by the calmness and firmness of his actions."  It specifically cited "his kind patience, as the tax collector, among our population."

The late Sheriff Barton was lionized in this El Clamor Público editorial, 14 February 1857.

The paper also cited his demeanor and behavior during a particularly trying episode, when a crowd sought the lynching of murderer Dave Brown, just after the legal execution of another convicted killer, Felipe Alvitre, was carried out in January 1855.  It was stated that "the firm conduct which he maintained in the execution of David Brown" was such that, "not all know that, the night before the event, he created his last will and testament" and that he was determined the maintain the trust of those who voted for him, and "was prepared to die rather than violate his duty," before being compelled to yield to the mob.

The editorial concluded that, "we have not told everything that can be said of Señor Santiago R. Barton.  It is but the feeble reflection of a character who deserves the deepest respect . . . [and]
no monument to his memory will be able to represent it truly."  Noting that Barton represented the supermacy of law, the paper claimed that this "is the true honor and compliment towards this lamented individual."

With all of the good feeling expressed by the press about the work of the joint companies in the search and capture of members of the Flores-Daniel Gang, there was soon a major fissure in the goodwill, based on news coming out of the mission town of San Gabriel.  This will be the theme of the next post.