The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1852

Many of the same problems that concerned the Los Angeles Common [City] Council in its first two years continued into 1852, its third.  This included ongoing issues with public disturbances, the inadequacy of the city and county jail, the frequent turnover of city officials, and more.

One interesting development early in the year came at the 21 January meeting when council member Joseph Lancaster Brent presented a draft memorial, or resolution, that he wanted state senator Stephen C. Foster to take to Sacramento which would request the senate to take Los Angeles' existing boundaries, established in the Spanish era as four square leagues, or just under 18,000 acres, and expanding them.

On 4 April 1850, the first California legislature passed an act incorporating the city of Los Angeles and limited its jurisdiction to four square miles, but the common council claimed an area of authority of far more than this, embracing 111 square miles, in an ordinance passed in July 1851.  Meanwhile, the preceding April, the legislature amended its incorporation act to state that, while the city's rights were limited to what the 1850 statute mandated, there were some exceptions with respect to water, because, clearly, water sources needed for the city's use were outside the established boundaries.

Though not stated in the council records, the memorial drafted by Brent and presented to the board on 21 January 1852 requested an area of authority of nine square miles, more than double what the city currently embraced.  With Foster's sponsorship, the legislature did amend the incorporation act on 1 May so that the city's control resided throughout the area of the original limits under Spanish fiat, provided that a majority of electors within that area signed a petition presented to the County Court.  That court had to adhere to the statute governing the incorporation of cities in the state.  It was not, though, until 1855 that County Judge Kimball H. Dimmick ordered the city's boundaries set to the original pueblo standards and a new map drawn to reflect this.

In 1859, the legislature approved an act extending the city's boundaries to a maximum of 1500 yards on any side and that August the southern boundary was extended 400 yards southerly.  After that, there was no change until 1874 when the boundaries were enlarged by legislation to roughly 5 miles in every direction in the form of a rectangle that was longer north and south.

In the meantime, the federal act concerning California land grants issued under Spain and Mexico and passed on 3 March 1851, led the common council to request the city attorney, former council member Brent, to submit an application to the Board of Land Commissioners formed to hear claims for sixteen square leagues.  This area was large enough that Brent's application was written so that, should the sixteen square leagues, based on a radial line of two leagues from a cardinal point at the Old Plaza Church, extend to the Mission San Gabriel, the request would adjust the proposed limits in a westerly direction to make up for the affected amount of land!

On 26 October 1852, as the board held its only hearing in Los Angeles (the rest of the time it met in San Francisco), the application was submitted.  As was typical, a decision was not rendered until February 1856, when the board rejected the sixteen league claim, confirming the city's limits at the four square leagues created under Spain.  The city appealed to the federal district court, but this was rejected.

A detail of the 1858 Hancock survey of Los Angeles, from Maps and Surveys of the Pueblo Lands of Los Angeles by Neal Harlow,.

Consequently, Henry Hancock completed a survey in 1858 that reflected the land claims decision and a patent was finally issued by President Andrew Johnson in 1866.  However, the federal General Land Office determined the patent was invalid because the Hancock survey did not meet federal statutory standards for patents.  Another patent was then issued by President Grant in 1875.  In June 1876, the common council rejected the Grant patent, claiming the Johnson one was correct.  An 1878 lawsuit determined at the state supreme court confirmed that the 1866 patent was the valid one and it was recorded by the city clerk.  In subsequent decades, the City of Los Angeles grew dramatically, so that its area is the twelfth largest in the United States.

Another resolution soon followed the one about the city's area of authority and dealt with its lack of real power to deal with crime.  Brent and council member John O. Wheeler asked the council on 9 February to approve a resoltuion asking General Ethan A. Hitchcock, commander of the Army's Pacific Divsion, to trasnfer one or two companies of infancy "as near as possible to this City, for the purpose of helping, as occasion may arise, in the preservation of good order."  This was duly approved.

Notably, Brent was the recipient of an inadvertent assist from Army troops in April 1851 when he was the defense attorney for two Lugo brothers charged in the murder of two men and jailed. A gang of bandits arrived from northern California and hatched a scheme to extort money from the Lugo family by freeing the brothers from custody.

When the Lugos rejected the offer, the bandits threatened to abduct the brothers after a bail hearing.  Brent, according to his later accounting of the incident, tried to arrange a defense and was astonished when a squadron of troops happened to march into town just as the hearing was about to begin.  With the Army as support, the brothers were escorted to jail without incident.  If this incident is as Brent described, it might explain his request with Wheeler a year later.  More, by the way, on the Lugo case is to be presented on this blog very soon.

On 6 March, council secretary William G. Dryden informed the council that the approved memorial was sent to the general, but is not known if Hitchcock responded or if any troops were sent to Los Angeles.  A decade later, when the Civil War broke out, however, the federal presence in the Los Angeles area was a whole different matter as troops were stationed in several areas, notable Camp Drum near the harbor at Wilmington, due to the overwhelming Confederate sympathies manifested in the region.

Meanwhile, Marshall William Reader found himself at odds with the council, though not directly over matters of criminal justice.  Instead, the issue was in the cleaning of city street, which was to be done by prisoners held by the city in jail.  When Reader submitted a bill in May for $150 to cover three months of work, the council ordered it referred back to the Police Committee, composed of attorney Myron Norton and Antonio Franco Coronel, for reconsideration "in the light of the opinions advanced during debate and of the contract itself."

When Norton and Coronel reported back at the 15 May meeting, they stated "they they had ascertained that the Marshal had failed to clean the streets and is consequently not entited to receive" any money as claimed, although the pair then did state that "some of the work had been done."  Coronel proposed that Reader receive half the amount "to indemnify him for what work he did so, and it was so ordered."

On 3 June, board president Manuel Requena proposed that the contract paying Reader $50 a month for street cleaning be canceled because citizens were, by ordinance, required to clean in front of their houses, and the mayor, then John G. Nichols, was to enforce the ordinance.  When Reader submitted his latest claim, it was rejected as lacking (presumably, the work was not done or was poorly.)  Twelve days later, Reader resigned and George Bachelder was appointed in his stead by Nichols.  Bachelder was then elected to the position on 18 August with the porch of the home of Ygnacio del Valle being the polling place.

The need for a dedicated jail occupied the council for much of the year.  On 3 June, council member and future governor John G. Downey asked what the city's rights were respecting the existing jail shared with the county.  Myron Norton then stated that Mayor Nichols implored the council the consider "the urgent necessity of providing the City with a Jail."  Norton then proposed that Nicols "be authorized to secure and equip a room which shall serve as a Jail under the care of the Marshal."

On the 15th, Nichols submitted a report that "he had secured two rooms, at a rental of fifteen dollars per month each, for use as a Jail."  The council readily assented to this with the provision that it was "reserving itself the benefit of any reduction of the rental should occasion arise."  For a city constantly on the edge of financial want, these kinds of statements were essential.

Articles from the 7 August 1852 edition of the Los Angeles Star regarding two matters discussed by the town's Common Council.  The first was for a new jail, which the article notes the construction of which was let out to J.D, Hunter (he did not complete the project, however).  The other was about a new property tax of 25 cents for every $100 of property, 20% of which was to go to the Jail Fund.

Wanting something better than existing adobe buildings of generally poor quality for the purpose, the council, on 2 August, heard a motion to institute a property tax of 50 cents for every $100 of value and "twenty per centum of the amount thus collected shall be set aside to form a fund for the construction of a City Jail."  Six members were present and it was split with half voting for the suggested rate and the other wanting 25 cents per $100, rather than 50.  Council member Mathew Keller proposed a compromise of 37 1/2 cents and this was referred to the Finance Committee.

At a special meeting the following day, the committe suggested a vote for either the Keller proposal or the 25 cents per $100 suggestion and, with seven members present, the vote was 4-3 to go with the lower amount.  Clearly, council members were concerned with imposition of taxes and, probably, their prospects at the next election.

On 7 August, Mayor Nichols reported "that the City has no premises that could be used as a jail," evidently his previous location did not pan out, "and it was accordingly resolved that the rooms in Mr. John Temple's house, which appeared suitable for that purpose, be engaged." Temple, who was the second Anglo to settle in Los Angeles, owned a home south of the Plaza on Main Street, and was frequently involved in civic matters, including the loan of the money to pay for the first survey of Los Angeles, done by Lt. Edward O.C. Ord in 1849, and, in 1859, built a two-story brick building that was leased two years later to the city and county for a courthouse and municipal and county offices.

In conjunction with the county, the city hired J.D. Hunter, to build a 30'x15'  two-story, with the lower story to be of stone and the second, consisting of the jailer's [this was also the town's marshal] residence to be adobe.  The $7000 cost was to be split among the two entities and the structure was to be finished by the end of the year.  Unfortunately, the project was not completed and it was another two years before a jail was built, as noted in previous posts.

Finally, the question of dealing with public disturbances occupied some considerable time in the summer.  At the 12 August meeting, the minutes stated that

It having come to the knowledge of the Council that excesses are being committed at the 'Maromas' or tight rope performances, subversive of public morals, and, furthermore, several citizens having complained of the noise caused by said shows which penetrates the neighborhood for a great distance, and considering the danger of a cruel epidemic, threatening to invade the country, which would be fed by late hours and excesses, Council resolved that the Mayor be invited to abate these abuses, prohibiting the beating of drums before and during the performances and not allowing them to continue after eleven o'clock at night, or by resorting to other measures which his prudence may suggest.

A maroma traditionally has been a one-man performance practiced in rural Mexico that included acrobatics, including tricks with tight ropes, but there seems to have been a variation here in Los Angeles involving enthusiastic accompaniment by drumming and, perhaps more public display, creating, at least for sme, a nuisance.

Notably, though, this statement was signed, not just by council member Downey, but also by Coronel and Requena, suggesting that the concern was not necessarily ethnic.

At the 22 September meeting, the minutes contained a statement that "having been informed of the abuses which to the detriment of good order are being committed by Indians when arresting other Indians who are disorderly," the council asked Mayor Nichols to attend to the situation, as well as "to prevent that the Indians put under arrest by the Marshal" were not treated with abuse.

It is worth pointing out here that there was an Indian alcalde who had jurisdiction in arresting Indians caught committing crimes, but also that in early 1853, Nichols was tried by the District Court on a charge of "misconduct in office" for the way Indians were treated, though, the matter was dismissed because there was no provision in state law for the alleged misconduct.

This article from the 16 November 1852 issue of the Star concerns the recently completed session of the Board of Land Commissioners in Los Angeles, where it heard land grant claims, including that of the city of Los Angeles.

While, generally, city and county prisoners held at the jail were available, in lieu of fines, for hiring out as free (some would say, slave) labor to farmers and ranchers, Coronel, who was tasked to report on the state of the city's zanjas, or ditches supplying the town with water from the Los Angeles River, proposed at the 5 November meeting "that all city prisoners available next Monday, shall be put to work on the ditch by the Mayor, provided the punishment is not disproportioned to the offense committed and that it lasts as long as they work."

One more little tidbit closes out this entry.  At the 17 December meeting, the council received a petition from a new resident who desired to open a school for instruction in English.  It should be noted that public schools were a couple of years away from creation and any education was conducted by private tutors or, on occasion, a small school.  There were two mentioned in the minutes for this meeting, one conducted by the priest at the Old Plaza Church and another by council member Coronel.

The new petitioner was an immigrant from Arkansas and a native of North Carolina named Alveron S. Beard, who was mentioned in some detail in an earlier post concerning the writings of Horace Bell.  The council, at this meeting, voted to hire him at $35 per month for the express purpose of teaching poor children, many of whom were to be designated by the council.  Once this was decided upon, Coronel recommended the creation of a schools committee and Downey and del Valle were named to serve.

As for Beard, more about him in a later post concerning his checkered career as city marshal.

The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1851, Part Two

As noted in a previous post here, there was an effort to create an official police force in Los Angeles in fall 1850, proposed by common [city] council member Morris Goodman.  That version, however, would have involved paid officers and the proposal fell flat, probably because the city simply lacked the funds to hire any employees.  Most of the town's income came from business licenses, but collecting these fees turned out to be a significant problem in many cases.

Still, with crime running high in Gold Rush-era Los Angeles, something needed to be done, so Mayor Benjamin D. Wilson revived the idea of a dedicated police force, albeit unpaid, at a council meeting of 12 July 1851, observing that the purpose was to preserve order that "he feared might be disturbed: otherwise.  Wilson alerted the council that Dr. Alexander W. Hope, who'd resigned as a council member at the beginning of the year, had offered his services in leading the force and the mayor recommended appointing Hope as chief.

There was quite a bit of discussion according to the meeting's minutes, after which council member Agustín Olvera proposed that Hope be appointed the chief of a volunteer force.  Olvera suggested that Hope and Manuel Requena set about organizing the force and appointing what were referred to as "subaltern officers."   This is an unusual reference, given that the use of the term "subaltern" was from the British military and identified a junior officer.  It can, however, also denote anyone in a subordinate position.

In any case, the council agreed to Olvera's recommendations and ordered that "it shall be the sole duty of the Police to watch over the security of the inhabitants and the preservation of peace, in confirmity with the Laws of the State" as well as the town's recently enacted ordinances.

Six days later, on 18 July, a special meeting of the council was held with Chief Hope offering suggestions on the organization of the force, presumably after his discussions with Requena.  Among these was that there needed to be some distinguishing mark for officers, with the result that the council approved the idea of a ribbon in English and Spanish that read: "City Police, organized by the Common Council of Los Angeles, Jly 12th 1851."  On the 23rd, the council approved the printing of 100 white ribbons as badges.

Requena also suggested that the council approve some location for the force to meet and store its armaments, basically a station house, and recommneded that Mayor Wilson and County Judge Olvera should arrange for the county court house as the locale and the county's armaments to be available to the force for their use.  A committee of council members Stephen C. Foster and John O. Wheeler was appointed as to oversee the force's operations along with Hope.

A letter to the editor of the new weekly newspaper, the Los Angeles Star, 9 August 1851, about the recently created volunteer police force and its actions in an incident involving piblic disorder at a local dance.

A letter from "ORDER"  in the 16 August 1851 edition of the newly launched weekly newspaper, the Los Angeles Star, addresed the creation of the volunteer police force.  The writer stated that officers "be required at all times when on duty, to be armed and be instructed carefully as to what rights they have in case of resistance" as well as "clear and positive orders as to the disposal they can make of a prisoner when arrested."

An example was cited of an arrest, possibly for public intoxication, but, the writer admonished the force because "they let a prisoner go on  promise to retire to his home, without any arms then upon him."  Evidently, however, the same volunteer officers "found him in twnety minutes afterwards, with a six-shooter, 'spreading himself' to the terror of one of the prettiest and quietest balls I have ever seen in this town."  Finally, the writer went on, "it was with no little difficulty that he was finally persuaded to deliver his pistol, and submit."

This event demonstrated, then, that "the police must not relax any of the vigor with which they stated out."  Otherwise, "ORDER" contined, "a fatal result came very near being necessary . . . solely for want of firmnes at the outset."  His final comment simply was

This 'six-shooter' business must be kept in check—especially at the festivities of the people of the country.

Notably, on the same date the article occurred, Marshal Alexander Gibson resigned, though whether it had anything to do with the chaos at the dance or more with his reduced duties due to the creation of the volunteer police force is not known.  The council then appointed William Reader marshal pro tem, pending an election in early September.

That contest pitted Reader against a recent arrival in town, a young Texan named David Brown whose background was probably unknown to most Angelenos.  Brown had been serving as an unpaid deputy marshal for short stints when he ran against Reader in the campaign for marshal, but the final tally was a landslide, with all of 103 voters casting their ballots!  Reader came out on top 83-20.

As for Brown, Los Angeles residents would become all-too-familiar with his frequent scrapes with the law relative to gambling, fighting and, ultimately, murder when, in fall 1854, he killed a man at a livery stable.  Brown was convicted in the murder and sentenced to hang, but his attorneys secured a stay of execution from the state supreme court on the allegation that public sentiment was prejudicial to a fair trial.  This assertion proved to be spot on as Brown was lynched by an enraged crowd baying for his blood in early January 1855.  More on that notable event later in a post on this blog.

There was another interesting criminal justice question that came before the council in September, when Olvera, who, again, was both county judge and council member, stated that he believed the city ordinance with respect to selling liquor to Indians was in conflict with state law.

The town's ordinance of 1850 generally prohibited sales of liquor beyond a certain hour (8 or 9 p.m. depending on the season), but was then amended on 21 May 1851 with an addition that liquor sales to natives was banned, with a jail term of five days and a fine of $20 to be imposed at the discretion of the Mayor, who presided over these infractions.

However, the state's "An Act for the Government and Protection of Indians," passed in April 1850 included, in its fifteenth section, the prohibition of selling, giving or furnishing any liquor, with a minimum sentence of 5 days in jail and a minimum fine of $20 to be imposed or both.  Olvera's concern appears to revolve around the fact that the city ordinance established a set fine and jail term, whereas the state created a minimum, but allowed for the imposition of a longer sentence and larger fine.  Whether the issue of having the mayor apply his discretion to local cases was a problem for Olvera is not known.

Requena then requested the city attorney, William G. Dryden (who succeeded Benjamin Hayes), to offer his opinion.  Dryden, who was admitted to the bar in 1850, but does not appear to have had any formal training in the law, and who was a county judge from 1856-1869, stated that the city was an independent authority and that the ordinance was in accord with state law.  With this in mind, the council voted to let the ordinance stand, but Olvera abstained, clearly believing this to not be the case.  Yet, on 25 September, Requena had some second thoughts about his vote, because he requested that the state supreme court be consulted as to the question of compliance of the local ordinance with statute.  It is not known, however, if a consultation was ever held on the matter.

Also at this meeting, Alexander Hope resigned as police chief, for reasons unstated, and the council, on Mayor Wilson's recommendation, appointed William T.B. Sanford to the vacated position.  Sanford, notably, then asked the council to allow him to utilize Marshal Reader's services as needed.

Council president David W. Alexander also resigned, because he was leaving the state with his friend, San Gabriel Valley rancher William Workman, to travel to the United Kingdom (Alexander was from Ireland and Workman from northern England).  Requena, previous council president, was then reappointed to that position.  After a special election a couple of weeks later, newly arrived attorney Joseph Lancaster Brent was elected to replace Alexander on the council.

Another major issue of 1851 was the major conflicts between the Indians of southern California, especially in the areas south and east of Los Angeles between San Diego and the Colorado River with Chief Antonio Garra battling militias, including one led by Joshua Bean, who soon after settled in San Gabriel and operated a saloon next to the old mission church.  More on Bean later in this blog, but the warring was of such concern to the common council that, a special meeting was held on 27 November to addres the question.

The anxiety was that rumors of an Indian invasion of Los Angeles were mounting--hardly surprising among a community already on edge about rampant crime at the height of the Gold Rush.  During the council's deliberations, there was a call, from unknown parties, for the mounting of a cannon and the stocking of 50 lances for protection.  The idea of having lances makes it seem all but certain that the suggestion came from one of the Californio members of the council, either Requena or Olvera.  Brent then suggested that a loan be obtained to pay for any defense of the town, because there wasn't, naturally, enough in the meager treasury.  Someone recommended that $500 be borrowed, but Olvera wisely observed that this should only be sought if needed.  This became a motion which the council readily approved.

The last major piece of criminal justice business addressed by the council in 1851 was the drafting of further ordinances, including the prohibition of firing guns after dark or inside homes at any time (!) with sentences including up to five days in jail and fines ranging from $5 to 50.  All such fines were to go to the Police Fund, supporting the voluntary police force.

The problem of raising funds for support of town services was also shown in the decision to change the licensing of gambling houses so that gaming table fees were cut from $100 per table per month to only $25.  This may have been a reflection of the inability of the marshal to collect fees, the propensity of proprietors to disguise their tables, and the need to find some way to establish a reasonable structure so that actual revenue could be derived from this obviously plentiful potential source of monies for the treasury.

The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1851

As the city of Los Angeles entered its second year of existence as a chartered American-era town, its Common [City] Council was undergoing a good deal of flux not unexpected for a frontier town.

As 1851 dawned, Stephen C. Foster, who served as an alcalde (roughly, mayor) at the end of the Mexican period, and José Vicente Guerrero took their seats after a special election, but then council member Alexander W. Hope submitted his resignation, as did city marshal Thomas Cox, who'd only been in office a short time.  Consequently, the council called for a special election on the 15th.

Meanwhile, Mayor Manuel Requena took up a matter that was first broached a few months earlier by council member Morris Goodman, who'd soon after resigned, this being the creation of a dedicated police force.  Meantime, with Cox vacating the marshal's office, the council passed a resolution that Moses Searles "be appointed a special police officer charged with the duties of the Marshal until the latter's election.

On 8 January, the minutes recorded that

The Mayor submitted a communication from several citizens of Los Angeles offering their good offices in the formation of a Police force, whereupon Council passed a vote of thanks for the good disposition shown by the gentlemen.

Requena followed by observing that the example set by the nine unnamed men who sent the letter should be demonstrated through an invitation to the general public for a volunteer police force (distinguished from Goodman's proposal for a paid force) to be selected by its own membership.  A suggestion was made to call for citizens to form "a Police Corps for the maintenance of good order in this City" and another recommendation was for a mass public meeting at the Plaza the next Saturday afternoon, though no disposition of these was recorded.

Eight days later, the returns of the special election were recorded with John O. Wheeler, later publisher of The Southern Californian newspaper, elected to the open council seat, and Alexander Gibson elected as marshal.

For a time the situation was stable and the only matters of note had to do with Gibson's offer to clean the streets for $50 per month and a special committee's suggestion that this be accepted "on condition that he be allowed to use the prisoners of the City to do this this work."

A common problem arose as spring arrived and the city perpetually battled financial deprivation.  On 1 May, the council decided to accept a finance committee recommendation to revise salaries for city officials.  The mayor and city attorney saw their compensation reduced, while the marshal was to be paid in fees basd on ordinances passed and revised in October 1850 and the past March.

Two days later, treasurer F.P.F. Temple reported that the city's cash reserves amounted to just $84.68 and the finance committee pointed out that businesses were evading license fees, which were the source of much of the town's revenues.  It was also noted that the city recorder still had some fines from April that had not been turned over to Temple and this $32 was obviously desperately needed!

This is an 1842 print titled "Natives of California," from an original provided courtesy of The Workman and Temple Family Homestead Museum, City of Industry.

In late May, the council amended its set of police ordinances to deal with the continuing problem of :the scandalous reunions of the Indians" on weekends and, specifically, "the gathering of the Indians [with respect to what was] called the game of the 'Pillon'" or Peon.  

Descriptions of the gambling game vary, but essentially Peon involved two teams of four men on either side of a bonfire.  Each had two pieces of bone or wood, one with a black band around it.  One of the men on each side held these pieces in each of his hands (these tied with leather thongs to prevent undue sleight-of-hand) under a blanket and the team on the other side had to guess which hand held the one without the band.  

Counters were used to determine how many incorrect guesses each side had and the first to reach fifteen counters for unsuccessful guesses was the losing side. Key was for the holder of the pieces to maintain a completely stoic expression to prevent the other side from guessing where the unmarked piece was when the other side pointed to the hand they thought it was in.

During the intense and lengthy process, games lasting many hours or even two or three days, songs were sung by women standing behind the players to spur the other side to fail, either in the guessing or for those holding the unmarked piece to betray by expression the hand it was in.   With alcohol and heavy wagers involved, violence often erupted during the games.

Consequently, the council amended its ordinances on 21 May so that "the game of 'Peon' is prohibited throughout the City, and reunions of Indians in the strets after night-fall are forbidden."  Perhaps because of the need to enforce this new ordinance and others that may have gone unenforced, the council agreed that "the Marshal shall have the right to appoint what number of deputies may be needed."  Further, "the Marshal and his deputies shall see to it that no intoxicating beverage is sold to the Indians" and take the proper steps with judicial authorities if this was violated.

Those Indians who ran afoul of these new prohibitions were subject to a fine of $2.50 or six days work on the chain gang.  As noted here previously, this week-long sentence was often followed by violations of the law on the seventh day and then a return to the "vicious cycle" of chain gang labor for the next week.  For those guilty of selling liquor to Indians, the fine was $20 or five days work on the chain gang or both, at the discretion of the mayor, who had jurisdiction on these matters.

There was one other change to the ordinances, which stated that the marshal and his deputies "shall wear a red ribbon in the button hole of their coats, by which they can be known as Police Officers."  The use of the term "police officers" is a segue into the next important action of the council in their criminal justice work--a topic that will be covered in the next post.

The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1850, Part Three

In the last few months of 1850, the year that city and county government began operations in Los Angeles, the flux that might be expected in any newly-organized frontier community manifested in varying ways.

With the Los Angeles Common (City) Council, one of the problems that arose early on had to do with the high turnover of its elected officials, including council members.  With regard to criminal justice administration, a key isue was compensation, starting with the town's first marshal, Samuel Whiting.

But, at the meeting of 13 September, Whiting reported that "for sundry reasons . . . he is not satisdied with the salary of six hundred dollars per annum" and, instead, requested the same compensation as the county sheriff, G. Thompson Burrill, which was based on fees.  These fees were for any service of process, for mileage traveled in the conduct of business, and so on, and were set by state law.

At the meeting, council member Jonathan Temple moved for the creation of a special committee to make a recommendation based on Whiting's request and he and new council member Benjamin D. Wilson were appointed.  Evidently, the results were not to Whiting's satisfaction, as he submitted his resignation on the following meeting of the 24th.

The council then called for a special election on 5 October, which was changed to the 7th and expanded when council member Alexander Bell and city treasurer Francisco Figueroa resigned their positions.  The election, held at the El Palacio adobe residence of Abel Stearns on Main Street, but, in the meantime, council member David W. Alexander proposed appointing a marshal pro tem, so that someone would be on the job.  When they asked a "Mr. Morton" to take the temporary position, he refused "not being familiar with the duties of that office."  Of course, the only prerequisite to serving was to simply be elected.  Alexander then asked that the mayor and recorder select a marshal pro tem and pay him $3 per day, which was approved by the council.

On 9 October, the election results were announced with Alexander W. Hope elected to the council, F.P.F. Temple as city treasurer, and Thomas Cox as marshal.  That same meeting the council's finance committee offered a fee schedule for the marshal, but this was not detailed in the minutes.  Council member Morris Goodman also proposed that the mayor be authorized "to establish a City Police Department, consisting of a Captain and two roundsmen; the Captain to receive one hundred dollars per month, and the roundsmen seventy-five dollars per month each."

Morris Goodman (1819-1888) was the first Jewish member of the Los Angeles Common (City) Council and proposed the formation of a city police department in October 1850.  Although the proposal was rejected by the council, a volunteer force was created the following year.  Later, Goodman was a partner with Theodore Rimpau in a mercantile house in Anaheim.  The photo is from the Jewish Museum of the American West, a great Web site, and their page on Goodman is here. 

Goodman's recommendation was rejected, likely not because it was a bad idea--in fact, it was almost certainly necessary given the amount of violence and law-breaking in town, but because it was just too expensive to expend $3,000 a year for officers, when the current system paid in the high hundreds.  In fact, not long after Francisco Bustamente, teacher at the only town-funded school, requested a raise from $60 per month to $100, the council decided, towards the end of the year to shut the institution down.

Another significant problem of the era was the dire situation with the local Indians, whose society was torn asunder from the time the Spanish missionaries arrived late 18th century and continued to struggle under Mexican and then American rule.  Among the many problems was a high rate of alcoholism in a region that counted wine and brandy manufacturing as one of its economic mainstays.  As noted here before, Indians were often paid in these articles, got drunk on Sundays (their one day off during the week), were arrested and jailed and, in lieu of having money to pay a fine for disorderly conduct, were farmed out to local ranchers and farmers, who paid them again with alcohol, fueling a vicious cycle.

On 16 October, then, the council resolved to ban "all mixing with the Indians of California during their feats [fetes] or reunions within this City."  This had specifically to do with gatherings in which Indians would drink to excess and violence, abuse and other behaviors would generally ensue.  The council then enacted an ordinance that stated "the police shall have the pwer to apprehend and arrest the transgressors and bring them before the Recorder, who may impose a fine up to twenty dollars or ten days in the chain gang . . ."

At the 27 November meeting, the mayor called the council's attention "to the destitute condition of the laborers employed on City works and asking that a sum of money be assigned to them to relieve their wants."  While it was not stated who these people were, it is safe to assume that many, or most, were Indians.  The council, however, chose not to address the matter.

By the end of the year, there had been another change to the composition of the council, as Jonathan Temple and Morris Goodman both resigned their seats, for reasons unspecified.  An election was called for on the 30th and the remainder of the business of the council before December concluded had mainly to do with the role of the recorder in dealing with both city ordinances and state statutes, relative to collecting fines for infractions of both.  It was noted that a little less than $300 was accrued to the treasury from fines in November and most of it expended.

The next post takes the activities of the council into 1851, including the reconsideration of Morris Goodman's idea of a dedicated police force, so check back soon for that.