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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
 |
| 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. |
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 nad 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 jal 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 froward 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 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 froward 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment