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.