Early Los Angeles Jails: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, 1858-1861

It is interesting to see that, as the 1850s closed and the next decade dawned, the condition of the county and city jail facility varied somewhat considerably over a several-year period.

The Grand Jury report, as reprinted in El Clamor Público, 17 July 1858.

El Clamor Público, for example, reprinted the report of the Grand Jury in its 17 July 1858 edition, with foreman F.P.F. Temple, stating,

El Gran Jurado ha visitado y examinado la Carcel del Condado, y encuentra que bajo al manejo del actual carcelero se suplen todas las necesidades de los prisioneros, y se pone la atencion debida al aseo y ventilacion de la carcel.

The Grand Jury has visited and examined the County Jail, and found that under the management of the jailer, all the necessities of the prisoners have been provided and he has given the necessary attention for the cleanliness and ventilation of the jail.

In late winter 1859, another Grand Jury report was issued and reproduced both by El Clamor Público and the Los Angeles Star with William H. Peterson, a former deputy sheriff, serving as foreman.  While Peterson wrote a scathing indictment of the "Indian alcade system," referred to in a previous post in this blog concerning the use of Indians arrested for drunkenness for servile labor, noting that it was "daily productive of evil and deserving of unqualified condemnation," he was highly complimentary when it came to the jail.

Peterson wrote that "an inspection of the jail affords satisfactory evidences of the efficiency of the gentleman in charge—Mr. Mitchell; and that due regard is paid to the cleanliness and good order of the prison and the health and security of its inmates."

In late November, another Grand Jury report found matters were generally well under the management of new jailer, Francis Carpenter, observing, as reprinted in the 26 November edition of the Star that they "find the prison and all the cells in a clean and healthy condition."  Carpenter, the report went on, "deserves great credit for the good order and management manifested by him, in the whole and every portion of said jail."

The Los Angeles Star reprinting of the report of the Grand Jury in its 26 November 1859 edition.

Interestingly, this report featured an element not generally found in others, the apparent interviewing of incarcerated prisoners as part of the review.  The report stated that "nor do we find any complaint whatever from those confirned therein. of the management or the treatment of the jailer."  It concluded by noting that "the prison yard is in good and cleanly order; and with two exceptions only, we find everything satisfactory. amd requiring no particular alteration or improvement.

The main exception was that

There is on the main upper room of the prison, a prisoner affected with a loathsome disease, from whence proceeds a stench which is almost intolerable.  The other persons confined in that part of the prison, are now obliged to be in contact with this intolerable nuisance, and, we believe, the dangerous effluvia proceeding from the disease.  These persons are human beings, and we think should not be thus exposed to such nuisances; we therefore recomment that the diseased man should be at once removed.

The Star of 10 March 1860 featured another Grand Jury report showed that there were some further concerns amidst general satifaction.  Foreman O.P. Passons [listed as Parsons] wrote that the condition of the facility "is deserving of approval", but went on to "suggest that additional whitewashing and ventilation woulkd contribute greatly to the promotion of the health of the inmates, and relieve the jailor from much labor which the want of these renders necessary."

More specifically, the jury exhibited its concerns regarding, "the want of conveniences, too, for the imperative calls of nature" and requested the Board of Supervisors to do something "whereby this serious deficiency may be obviated."

Yet, in the July report, the jury merely stated that "they have . . . visited the county jail, and found the same cleanly, and in good condition."  Two months later, another jury was equally sanguine, reporting that it was "clean, in good order, and well kept."  By these very terse reports, it would seem that at least some of the concerns of the November and March reports were dealt with.

Except that the November 1860 Grand Jury not only deviated from these, but great expanded upon the statements of its predecessory from exactly a year prior.  Foreman J.F. Stephens reported, as reprinted in the 24 November issue, that

After proper examination it was with regret that we had much to condemn.  The several apartments were in very bad condition; emitting from heaps of filth that had been sufferent to accumulate, a most unwholesome and offensive stench.  The sick prisoners, of whom there are two, complain of a lack of proper medical attendance and suitable food.  We deem it highly important that the entire premises should be immediately cleansed and precautions taken to insure greater cleanliness for the future.

Taking the jailer to task because of "absence, negligence and incapacity," the jurors went on to note that "several persons, committed for petty offences, were detained some weeks after their term of sentence had expired."  Yet, there was another prisoner who was sentenced to six months and a $30 fine, but "was discharged by the jailor, without authority, after three days of imprisonment.  Then, there was an Indian who was held on "some undefined charge, and suffered to remain over two months, without examination or commitment."

A very critical Grand Jury report, published in the Star, 24 November 1860.

Also of note was the fact that "prisoners were frequently put in and taken out of jail by the township officers [from outlying areas of the county], without the knowledge of the person in charge."

Given these issues, the jury recommended that "the general condition of the jail, no less than the safekeeping of the prisoners, imperatively demands a thorough change in the management and direction to all things relating to the county prison."

The 9 March 1861 edition of the Star reprinted the Grand Jury report, as subscribed by foreman George W. Gift, and the only problem cited with the jail had to do with "some repairs [to] be had upon the wall surrounding it," otherwise the jury felt that "in all other respects, our visit to the Jail was satisfactory."

Yet, Gift noted something with respect to the fact that "a very great evil exists in the present mode of administering justice to the Indian petty criminals who are convicted before the Justices of the Peace throughout the county."  Specifically citing the statute dealing with "the government and protection of Indians in this state," Gift observed that punishments for the petty theft required uo to twenty-five lashes.  Not only was "this mode of punishment . . . very seldom resorted to," but that "our prisons are burdened with this class of criminals, at a very great expense to the county."

Beyond that, it was claimed in the report, "the Indians themselves, it may be said, hardly consider imprisonment, coupled with good board, a punishment; but, on the contrary, deem it a reward."  Consequently, this section concluded,

We say, whip the Indians at once, and stop that expense of their keeping in the County Jail.

Matters worsened in the next report, as detailed in the 13 July issue of the Star.  Foreman J.J. Warner's statement echoed that of the November 1860 report in that there were several examples of prisoners confined because of a lack of due process.  In one instance, a prisoner was in the jail for over a month without an examination before a judge and the jury determined that the matter lacked "any inquiry or proof of malice on the part of the accused."  In addition to the wrong of having the individual confined for weeks without reason, there as also the fact that "the county [was] made chargeable with his support and the costs arising from the commitment."

Another notable situation involved a grand larceny suspect already serving a sentence for petty larceny, which involved his being sent out as a laborer on a nearby ranch or farm, from which he escaped.  It was another six months before his recapture, by which time the sole witness in the grand larceny matter had left the area.  Then, although his petty larceny sentence expired, the man "still is in jail, without any proceedings, having taken place in his case.

Other examples were cited of cases dealing with the charge of assaults with deadly weapons, yet all lacked "sufficient evidence to warrant the finding of [true] bills" while "the accused have been for periods of greater or less duration in prison."  With these matters involving "a serious wrong," the jury noted that, in examples of innocence, "great injustice is done to the individual," while, for the guilty, "the accused only becomes more hardened and depraved through his incarceration, without the ends of the ends of justice being attained."  Moreover, these imprisonments meant that "the county has been unnecesarily unburdened with expense."

Then, there was the condition of the jail.  The jurors noted that

we found the rooms of the prison filled with a foul and disagreeable atmosphere.  The walls of the rooms are yellow and discolored by noxious vapors.  From an unpardonable neglect, the conducting pipes from a water closet used by a large proportion of the inmates of the prison, had been suffered to remain in a leaky condition until the floor of the room became saturated.

Despite some repairs involving the covering of the water closet floor with metal, "the atmosphere of the prison . . . was highly impregnated with a most offensive and unhealthy effluvia."  For reasons of comfort, health, economizing "and the reputation of the county," it was recommended that "a much higher degree of cleanliness" be employed throughout the facility, which was only cleaned every eight days.  Considering the size of thh spaces, the number of prisoners and the infrequency of cleaning, it was evident to the jury that "the rooms must become prejudician to the health of those confined therein."

A particularly visceral report from the Grand Jury, from the Star's issue of 13 July 1861.

Moreover, the report contined, "the prisoners in the jail complain of the quality and quantity of the food furnished them, and the infrequency of their meals."  Morning rations included just "a cup of unpalatable coffee" and "a small piece of bread."  The noon meal consisted of "a pint of vegetable soup and also meat, but that the latter from its quality and want of cleanliness and care in cooking, is objectionable."  Remarkably, a full 19 hours passed before the morning meal was provided.  Sheriff Tomás Sanchez told the jury that, on this latter point, "he was guided by the advice of the visiting physician."

Less than two weeks later, in the 24 July 1861 edition of the Los Angeles News, another problem was reported "in regard to the criminal looseness and carelessness with which our county jail is conducted."  Siriaco Arza, awaiting trial for murder, "was discovered by an officer in the street, and at liberty."  Another inmate, under a fice-month sentence, was discovered missing.  A police officer "heard of his whereabouts, and infomed the jailor, inquiring what reward would be paid for his capture."  The reply was that, because the man had served two months for the petty offense, "that was sufficient," meaning he did not need to be retaken and returned to jail.

Outraged, the News demanded that "this matter should be thoroughly investigated," stating that "it is not thus that our county jail, where some of the worst criminals are sometimes confined, should be managed."  Sheriff Sanchez, who appointed the jailer, was responsible for the problem and "is hihgly censurable for appointing a man so unfit and irresponsible."  The paper insisted that "the investigation into the affairs of the prison should be severe, and those persons who are guilty ought to be severely punished."

By 1861, the county was in some desperate financial straits, as the end of the Gold Rush, a glut in the cattle market which formed the region's economic backbone, the depression of 1857 and other factors were at play.  Taxpayers were loath, even in flush times, to pay for even the most basic of amenities.  Finally, it appears that jail conditions were also heavily dependent on the good offices of the county sheriff and his appointed jailer.

Generally, matters appeared to have improved after the early 1860s, but there seems little question that, for extended periods, the jail was poorly managed and maintained for much of the 1850s and first part of the following decade.