"Violent Land" by David T. Courtwright

A reading of Eternity Street, the excellent study published early this year on early Los Angeles criminal justice by John Mack Faragher, included an observation of some of the books cited in the bibliography that were definitely worth checking out.

One of these is David T. Courtwright's Violent Land:  Single Men and Social Disorder from the Frontier to the Inner City.  Well, here's a book, published in 1996, which covers exactly some of the sentiments expressed in this blog and previous articles, essays and presentations related to Trembling on the Brink.  Violent Land clearly and cogently explains the conditions that fostered violence in places like Los Angeles, due in large measure to the presence of young men inclined to commit acts of murder and other crimes on the frontier.

While Courtwright doesn't specifically address Los Angeles, his fourth chapter, "The Altar of the Golden Calf," did cover the Gold Rush years in California and the particular and exceptional conditions that applied there.  He started with this compelling statement:  "From the standpoint of social order nearly everything that could have gone wrong on the American frontier did go wrong."  He lists some key ingredients in the recipe for violence: alcohol, racism, and an over-sensitive code of honor.  The new availability of the Colt revolver, revolutionizing violence in volume, was another major element, as it became available in 1849, just in time for the Gold Rush.

Moreover, he continued, "institutional restrains like efficient police, predictable justice, permanent churches, and public schools were lacking, as were the ordinary restrains of married life."  It could be said that, though places like Los Angeles had churches, these were generally attended by women, which partly explains why the Roman Catholic Church was well-established, given that there were plenty of Latino women in town.  Protestant churches, however, struggled to survive, because, especially in the first half of the 1850s, there were so few women to be congregants.

Courtwright identifies another important element:  men who were in trouble elsewhere fled to "the current rogue's haven."  He cited an example of the phrase "gone to Texas" as symbolic of fleeing law enforcement and creditors, but it is also true that a great many Texans hightailed it to California, if not to flee, then to join the hordes of Gold Rush migrants, but those conditions of violent behavior often came with them.

Naturally, Gold Rush California was attractive because there was both money and vice in ample supply.  Young men in mining towns as well as the larger cities and towns outside the gold regions brought more gambling houses, saloons and taverns, brothels and more.  Drunken brawls, fights over insults, cheating (perceived or real) or losses incurred at cards, and many others resulted.

Courtwright pointed out that of the nearly 90,000 persons who poured into California in 1849, the ratio of men to woemn was about 20 to 1.  He also cited a fact that, within six months, 20% of the new arrivals had died, due mainly to endemic illnesses, such as cholera, which swept through the gold fields.  Poor nutrition, abysmal sanitation, over-indulgence in alcohol, and addictions to gambling were also huge problems.  The latter two could also lead to gross excesses in violence.

Hinton Helper, who wrote about California at the time, estimated there were over 4,000 murders in six years (along with 3,000 suicides and deaths due to insanity) and these were almost certainly over-inflated, but, as Courtwright noted, "California was a brutal and unforgiving place."  It was also, he continued "the most unfettered and individualistic place in the world."

This early 1850s magazine illustration of a "Miner on a Prospecting Tour" does show the man packing a long-barrelled pistol in a holster.  Weapons were essential equipment for miners, along with picks, shovels and pans, and were necessary accesories in Gold Rush Los Angeles for many men, as well.

In a section titled "Counting Bodies," Courtwright looked at homicide statistics, noting that "for ease of comparison the result are expressed in the modern Uniform Crime Reports format of so many homicides per 100,000 persons per year."  While comparing numbers, even accounting for missing information, exaggerations, inaccurate reporting on what might be a murder relative to another form of homicide and so on, can be useful, such analyses should be viewed with caution.  Giving some examples of mining towns with astronomical rates of homicides compared to Boston, Philadelphia or a rural Illinois county, Courtwright correctly stated that "the western mining frontier was an exceptionally violent place," though he also pointed out that railroad towns were also notoriously violent.

Still, a mining town, railroad town, or a place like Los Angeles existed in a particularly specific and unique condition not replicable elsewhere, so comparisons to an established eastern metropolis or a remote rural county in the Midwest is, to a significant extent, questionable.  This is largely so because, as Courtwright commented, the former examples involved "abnormally male and youthful populations" subject to vice and violence.  The lack of money to effectively fund policing and court operations, the lack of women as mothers, sisters, and spouses to tamp down male aggression, a dearth of religion and other social institutions, and other factors were significant.

Again, Courtwright did not mention Los Angeles anywhere in this section of his book, though he did so later in discussions in talking about modern violence in the city, but his general discussion of Gold Rush California is useful in looking at how a southern "cow town" with business links to the gold fields and which was a transit point to emigrant trails from the east and roads leading to the gold country, has much food for thought.

The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1859

The last year of the tumultuous and turmoil-filled 1850s began with another nod to straitened financial circumstances in the post-Gold Rush economic environment, when, at its 17 January 1859 meeting, the Los Angeles Common [City] Council's finance committee reported that the contract it renegotiated with the city jailor, Joseph Smith, was "the best contract that could be made under the circumstances."  With this far-from-enthusiastic recommendation, the council went ahead and approved the deal, the details of which were not recorded.

At the same meeting, former council member and businessman/rancher Jonathan Temple petitioned to meet with the council concerning "public buildings" he was contemplating building.  Coucil members Stephen C. Foster, John S. Griffin, and David M. Porter were appointed to a committee to consult with Temple on his intentions.

On the 25th, the committee issued its report, stating the Temple "solely or in connectio with others," proposed to build structures that could be rented to the city at 1 1/4% of the cost of the building and the stated $5,000 value of the land as monthly rent for ten years, with the city having the opttion to buy the structure at the end of that period or before at cost.

The proposed building, designed by local builder W.H. Dearien and located between Main and Spring streets and Temple and 1st was to be exempt from taxation and kept in good repair by the city.  The committee recommended that Temple's terms be accepted and that the structure be specifically for butchers and green grocers.  It also recommended that total payments to Temple over the ten years not exceed $25,000, though this was increased to $30,000 by the council, which approved the idea, but stipulated that the structure had to be two stories, not one (after all, Los Angeles was ready to move a little higher skyward than usual!)

This circa 1870 stereoscopic photograph shows Jonathan Temple's Market House, with its landmark cupola and clock tower.  Completed in 1859, the structure was mainly a commercial building, but had quarters for city hall, and, on the second floor, the first true theater built in Los Angeles.  The worsening economy, though, led to changes in its use quickly.  From the Workman and Temple Family Homestead Museum collection.

On 21 February, a contract between Temple and the city was presented and approved, followed by an extraordinary (special) meeting two nights later, held to draft an ordinance concerning the proposal for what was then being called the "Market House and City Hall."  Dearien's design, in fact, was evidently modeled on that of Boston's landmark Faneuil Hall, reflected by Temple's upbringing in nearby Reading, Massachusetts.

In early May, Temple petitioned the council to allow him to add, at a cost of $1,500, a cupola and clock that would surmount the structure--this feature eventually became a major focal point of the building.  The issue evidently was put aside, because it was resubmitted in June.  A month later, a special meeting was held to devise a system for renting "stalls" or small stores in the building.

Not coincidentally, perhaps, Temple then petitioned the council for the creation of a new street to be named for him, which would extend west from what was then the intersection of Main and Spring.   This bordered the northern tip of what would be called the Temple Block, with the proposed Market House at the southern section.

This 30 July 1859 article in the Los Angeles Star describes the nearly-complete Market House of Jonathan Temple.

After Temple was able to buy land from the heirs of Antonio Valdez as well as from Francis Mellus to make way for the street, the council gave its approval.  Temple Street was only one block in its early incarnation, but it seems obvious that Temple felt future growth would move up into the hills to the west of town.  Unfortunately for him and others, that move would be great delayed by the economic doldrums that worsened in the first half of the Sixties.

Meanwhile work continued on the Market House and, by late September, the special committee assigned to monitor its progress, reported that the building should not be received by the city until it was determined to meet all contract specifications.  In fact, an ordinance was approved concerning renting stalls for three months, with a nine-month extension, and bills were to be posted about these terms because the structure was due to be open by the first of October.

A special meeting on the 30th was held for examination of the finished building, the renting of stalls and other related business and the council requested Temple and Francis Mellus to issue a two-year warranty on the mastic roof that Mellus's business put on the structure.  The vote to accept the building was not, however, unanimous as members Wallace Woodworth and Ezra Drown voted no, though their reasons were not given.  By then, however, a crime spree, including homicides, rocked the town (yet again) and there was some criticism of the time spent by the council on the Market House, rather than the rise in violence.

The 29 October 1859 issue of the Star featured this scathing letter decrying the Los Angeles Common Council's undue concern for the Market House, while murders were taking place in and near the town.

While, as stated before, most of the building was for commercial markets with a city-appointed "market master" to handle management, city hall was moved into the building and the mayor, Damien Marchessault, was empowered to rent the city hall portion for public uses as he saw fit--this was clearly a way to bring income to help pay for expense of renting the city's portion of the building.

There was some pushback from the city's merchants, though, about the conditions imposed by ordinance about green grocers and butchers being limited to using the Market House, so the council agreed to allow game, poultry and vegetable to be sold anywhere in the city between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. from 15 September to 15 March--an interesting compromise that included sales at the Market House to be carried out on the Sabbath.  Later, some citizens requested permission from the council to build another market house "north of Old High Street" in what was the Sonoratown area north of the Plaza, though nothing came of the request.

Meanwhile, council member and special committee member Griffin petitioned and was given permission to be allowed to rent the second floor "for the purose of lecturing and other entertainments."  This led to the creation of what was called the Temple Theater, the first true theater, though short-lived, built in Los Angeles.

Now, what this has to do with criminal justice will soon be seen in the next post or two concerning the fate of the Market House for that purpose.

As for other matters before the council concerning criminal justice, 1859 saw the first references to the hiring of special police officers, when, early in the year, Mayor John G. Nichols appointed four men to serve as a night watch.  Moreover, these men were partially paid by citizen subscriptions, though it was pointed out that, given the city's precarious financial condition, more funds would be needed.  Consequently, council members Foster, Griffin and Cristobal Aguilar were appointed to review how to continue with employing the special officers.

Also from the 29 October 1859 edition of the Star is this piece about the need for a city police force to deal with "the numerous outrages which have lately disgraced our city."

By mid-April, however, the quartet, who were paid $70 per month had to be let go after three months because the Common Fund couldn't sustain more work for them and they were discharged.  Early in December, a citizen petition to the council asked for the specific appointment of William McLoughlin as a city policeman for the area at Los Angeles and Commercial streets.  This was referred to the police committee, which recommended an ordinance giving the mayor, now Damien Marchessault, the power to appoint additional officers when necesary "particularly in certain localities, when the citizens thereof are willing to defray the expenses."  That part of town was the home of some of the town's most successful merchants, like Harris Newmark and others, but there had also been a spate of crimes committed in town recently, as well.

In early May, the new council was seated and heard reports on city prisoners.  The mayor was requests to make any contract regarding prisoner maintenance that he saw fit and then to return the document for approval.  At the meeting of the 9th, the council "resolved, that the clerk call the attention of the City Marshal, to the Ordinance defining his duties."   Marshal Frank H. Alexander's negligence was not specifically identified, however.

Mayor Marchessault returned the following week to report on a temporary arrangement made with jailor Smith for prisoner maintenance and one specification was that "for all Indians after trial and who are not taken out of jail—the jailor to be allowed for their board thirty-seven and a half cents per day.  White person detained in like manner—he shall be allowed fifty cents per day for their board."  In December, though, on the suggestion of the marshal, the police committee suggested equalizing the amount, so that Indians also had their board set at 50 cents per day and this was approved at the meeting of the 26th.

There were also problems with others and the mayor requested an ordinance that would prohibit "idle and lewd persons from running and loitering about the streets of the City."  This was followed the next week by a police committee suggestion, in which its members "recommend that the Statute of the State be put in force against vagrants and other idle vicious persons, in lieu of an ordinance."  There was a law on the books in California concerning "vagabonds and other suspicious and dangerous persons" and there was a vagrancy provision in the town's 1855 ordinances, but there seems to have been a desire for something stronger.

The Spanish-language newspaper, El Clamor Público, listed newly elected city officials, including the mayor, Common Council members, and the marshal in its 21 May 1859 issue.  Thanks to Paul Bryan Gray for providing microfilmed copies of this newspaper.

Later in the year, at the end of September, a citizen petition appears to have provided an example of the perceived problem as the document concerned "two saloons on Main Street in front of the house of John G. Nichols [former mayor], where large numbers of idle persons assemble day and night, where money is lost and won, and continued disorderly conduct is observed."  This matter was referred to the police committee.

Financial problems were referenced when Marshal Alexander asked for an increase in salary at an October meeting and nothing came of it and when jailor Richard Mitchell repaired the jail and asked for reimbursement for the use of lime and whitewash, but the request was rejected for unstated reasons.  Mitchell then resigned and Francis J. Carpenter, a former jailor, became the marshal.

The 1850s ended with many of the same issues in play as at the beginning of the decade, whether this be financial uncertainty, issues regarding the treatment of Indians, problems with the city marshal, and what to do with disorderly conduct.  There was a hint of improvement with the movement of the city hall into a new modern brick building rather than the decaying adobe houses that served this function, albeit cheaply for the city's meager budget.  The 1860s would lead to some further changes to try and improve conditions for the city's criminal justice administration system in a variety of ways.

The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1858

The year 1858 started with an interesting situation.  City Marshal William C. Getman, who'd served in that office since May 1856, was also elected Los Angeles County's sheriff.  This circumstance had not happened before and wouldn't again, certainly not in later days when it would be impossible for one man to do both jobs.

Getman had only been in the sheriff's position for a few months when he went, on the morning of 7 January, to investigate a situation involving a mentally ill man named Reed.  When Getman confronted Reed and tried to defuse the situation, the latter shot and killed the marshal.  Constable William W. Jenkins, who was at the center of a major controvery involving his killing of a man in July 1856 just after Getman became marshal, was wounded by Reed and injured the assassin, who was finished off by constables Robert Hester and Frank Baker and Under-Sheriff William H. Peterson.

The next day, the council met in an extraordinary session called by Mayor John G. Nichols "to take into consideration the vacancy now existing in the office of City Marshal, owing to the sudden death of William Getman, the previous incumbent."  The council then appointed city jailor Eli M. Smith as a temporary replacement until an election on the 19th, which Smith won.

The Los Angeles Star's coverage of the murder of Los Angeles marshal and county sheriff William C. Getman, 9 January 1858.

At the regular council meeting of the 11th, a committee of Mayor Nichols and council member George N. Whitman were appointed to examine Getman's books and issue a report.  Two weeks later, the two came back and notified the council that they "report defalcation in the different City funds under his charge, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $1696.24, as far as yet ascertained."

Here again was an instance of the city marshal being involved in detrimental conduct, starting with Alviron Beard in 1853-54, then Alfred Shelby the following year, and finally the resignation of George W. Cole before Getman seemed to bring some stability to the office.  Not only did the counci authorize the mayor to seek the missing funds from Getman's sureties, but it had an expired contract with jailer Francis Carpenter to attend to.  The council did renew a pact with Carpenter for 6 months, as well as a provision "that the extra sum of $10 be allowed the present City Marshal to pay an Indian Alcalde [a mayor-judge type position for Indian-related conflicts] monthly."

On 8 February, the council formed a special committee of Nichols, Antonio Franco Coronel, a veteran council member and former mayor, and John Frohling, a founder of Anaheim and vineyardist whose firm of Kohler and Frohling became a major player in California's wine industry.  The trio was appointed to determine with the consultation of an attorney what steps could be taken to recover the city's money from Getman's sureties.  A week later, they recommended, and the council agreed, to hire an attorney to be hired at a 10% commission to secure those funds.

On 1 March, John B. Winston, one of Getman's sureties petitioned the council with many citizens signing in his favor that current council member and the other surety Hiram McLaughlin was unable to pay his half of the amount because of a fire that affected his business as a blacksmith.  Winston proposed that the solution was "by his paying one half, which to him would correspond" and, to this, the council approved.

El Clamor Público, in its 24 April 1858 issue, had this article about the problem of securing $1,800 in city funds misappropriated from marshal and sheriff Getman and which was sought from his sureties, J.B. Winston and Hiram [Charles was an error] McLaughlin.  Thanks to Paul Bryan Gray for making microfilm of the paper available.

Then, two months after the Winston petition, the council took the extraordinary step of submitting the McLaughlin question of whether the council could release him of his obligations to the voters at the upcoming city election.  The result was an overwhelming 227-39 vote to allow the council to use its discretion in the matter. In fact, the council's decision to free McLaughlin of this commitment had to be taken to the state legislature which, in spring 1859, passed an act approving this relief to McLaughlin.

The remainder of the year dealt mainly with issues involving the jail.   At the 28 June meeting, the police committee of wagon-maker John Goller, David M. Porter, future mayor Cristobal Aguilar, Wilmington harbor developer Phineas Banning, and city attorney James H. Lander recommended that jailor's contract be rescinded.  Mayor Nichols was then given the power to issue an agreement with new jailer Joseph Smith for one year from 1 July using the terms of the previous contract, though the council decided to seek new proposals from both the police committee and from new marshal Frank H. Alexander.  It appears, though, that Smith's contract as presented by Nichols was maintained.

Another eternal issue was with Indian drunkenness and the vicious cycle of their arrest and then, in lieu of paid fines, their being hired out as free labor to local ranchers and farmers.  The council ordered that Alexander be empowered to "use effective diligence in preventing the sale of intoxicating liquors to Indians."  

This is a very rare example of an English-language section of El Clamor Público with discussion in the 16 January 1858 edition of the election of Eli M. Smith as marshal after Getman's killing.

The last half of the year was quiet with only minor business, such as the ordering of jail repairs by Joseph Smith, the request of Marshal Alexander to enforce a fireworks ban in the city, and other matters deliberated upon by the council.  

Notably there was no mention in the minutes regarding the dramatic and highly controversial end of November lynching of Pancho Daniel, the co-leader of the gang that assassinated Sheriff James R. Barton and members of his posse hunting Daniel and his associates in January 1857.

The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1857

Considering how fateful 1857 was when it came to crime, violence and criminal justice in greater Los Angeles, mainly with the fearful drama that followed the brutal execution-style killings of Sheriff James Barton and three members of a posse he assembled to track down the Daniel-Flores gang which had terrorized San Juan Capistrano, then part of Los Angeles County, the minute books of the Los Angeles Common (City) Council are surprisingly devoid of material on these aspects.

In fact, other than the fact that the usual regular meetings of the council were postponed for about a month, between 20 January and 18 February, while the crisis was taking place, nothing was actually stated in the recor, other than that there a vague reference that business needed to be conducted because a quorum had been lacking for the gathering scheduled prior to the latter date.

Whatever was discussed tended to be focused on what to do with city prisoners and the notorious chain gang that operated on a vicious cycle that was tantamount to an institutionalized variant of slavery for Indians arrested on Saturday night, tried on Sunday and, unable to pay the sentence of a fine, were hired out for labor, either on the chain gang or to nearby ranchers and farmers.

Just prior to the awful slaughter of Sheriff Barton and his men, city marshal William C. Getman called for the council to determine "the propriety and necessity of the formation of a chain gang," which petition was directed to the special committee on the jail.

At an extraordinary (not regularly scheduled) council meeting in early March, a new ordinance was written for street cleaning, using "all Indians imprisoned or under sentence for a term according to ordinance."  A clarification was added that, "no Indian imprisoned for any offense agains the ordinances of the City shall be detained for more than twenty-four hours in which time he will be tried and sentenced, liberated, or given over to the contractor for cleaning the streets."

While this last sounded liberal and progressive, it could be read to mean that a rushed trial and the quick assignment of Indians to the chain gang was the goal.  Yet, in April a bill presented for expenses incurred in the maintenance of Indians at the jail was disallowed because of the ordinance "which declares that no Indians shall be detained at the City Jail, at the charge of the City."  This evidently was interpreted to signify that it was the county's problem, but the finance committee did recommend paying much of the bill "in consideration of extraordinary services."  It appears that the incarceration of Indians in the jail necessitated this recommendation.

At the same time, the city numerous purveyors of liquor petitioned the council for a reduction in the license to sell spirits.  This would have the double effect of allowing more liquor to be sold in the City of the Angels, but of reducing revenues needed to deal with the problem of intoxicated citizens through the town's criminal justice system.

In mid-April, there was some discussion about a citizen petition for "the rent of a room to be paid for by the Common Council, to serve as an Armory Hall, for a voluntary company called the 'Southern Rifles."  The rise of citizen militias, no doubt as a reaction to real or perceived inefficiencies with law enforcement, was a major question in greater Los Angeles during the 1850s and, in some ways, mirrored issues throughout the United States.

This 1857 lithograph by Kuchel and Dresel and published by Britton and Rey of San Francisco as part of a series of California views, is a rare and detailed though highly sanitized view of pre-Civil War Los Angeles.  It was issued four years before the first photograph of the town was taken and about fifteen years before images were commonly published in stereoscopic form.  

While militias were the reason for the second amendment to the federal constitution and it was presumed these citizen-staffed organization were essential for common defense, the reality turned out to be very different than theory.  It can be said that there were several citizen companies that mobilized in the aftermath of the Barton slayings and some did good work in tracking the bandits, reconnaissance, and other duties, while others did shoddy work, such as letting some bandit members escape during simple guard duty.

The Civil War later would reveal just how poorly organized and train citizen militias really were and writers have observed that these groups were more social clubs for drinking and fraternizing than for defense.  Much of the reason for the formation of the National Guard was to retool the concept of citizen militias into more reliable organizations.

In any case, the Council responded that it was "considering itself without the power to dispose of city funds for the support of any volunteer company."  The use of volunteer citizen companies did continue for some time after, however--mainly, as noted above, during the Civil War, when Los Angeles was a secessionist hotbed and militias of Southern sympathizers and of northern leaning citizens were formed.

Also, in April, the council returned to the question of how city prisoners were maintained and processed through sentencing and a draft ordinace was written, followed by a police committee suggestion that the word "Indian" in the street cleaning ordinance be replaced with "Person."  Again, this has the look of a forward-thinking recommendation, but it might also have been a way to mask reality with something official that looked non-discriminatory.  On 29 April, the council approved this change and sent it to the mayor for his signature.

This was just in time for a change in personnel after the spring election in early May.  Not long afterward, an acute problem with the town's finances was shown when Mayor John G. Nichols told the council that a prevailing agreement reached with the jailer, Eli M. Smith, that would pay Smith $50 a month for all prisoner board and services was in the breach because the jailer had not been paid in four months.

In June, Nichols returned to present to the council a new contract executed with Smith "for Board of City prisoners and other matters connected therewith, whereby the City will be in a  great measure relieved from expenses on account of her prisoners."  While the council promptly approved the new agreement, the terms were not specified--it is assumed that the county agreed to shoulder some of the financial burden for prisoner maintenance.

Research in the council minute books found nothing for the last half of 1857, so that all that can be given here is for the first six months of the year.  As a recurring problem, however, the management of the jail, particularly in the outlay of funds, was a major preoccupation for a small town with a lean budget based on low tax revenues.  The Gold Rush had ended, a national depression broke out in 1857, the local cattle economy was in a doldrums and fiscal issues were becoming tougher for city officials to handle.

The Los Angeles Common Council and Criminal Justice, 1856

In the seventh year of its operations, the Los Angeles Common Council started off 1856 with relatively little excitement when it came to law enforcement and criminal justice.  The only significant incident of note was when Marshal Alfred Shelby had to refunded $460 in mid-March "for money lost through and by his deputy George Sexton."

These funds were almost certainly license fees and fines collected by Sexton and Shelby's behalf, but how exactly the monies were misplaced was not explained.  Whether this incident had any effect of Shelby's failed attempt at reelection in May is not known.  The election on the 10th found Shelby tallying 124 votes to William C. Getman's 167, but there could have been a more important reason for the marshal's defeat.

On 14 April, less than a month before the election, Shelby was involved in a confrontation with two men, one of whom was killed and the other seriously wounded by the marshal.  El Clamor Público in its 19 April edition didn't have much detail to offer about the shooting of Burgess, which also involved the serious wounding of a man named Tate.  The paper did say that Shelby "uso tan libremente de su pistola [freely used his pistol]" in the confrontation, the circumstances of which went unexplained.

A portion of an article from El Clamor Público, 19 April 1856, covering the killing of William Burgess and the wounding of a man named Tate by Los Angeles marshal Alfred Shelby.  When it came time for Shelby, who lost a bid for reelection in May, to appear for trial in late July, he skipped bail, evidently for Sonora in northern Mexico.  Thanks to Paul Bryan Gray for providing microfilm of this paper.

Shelby was arrested and, after a preliminary hearing, was released on his own recognizance without bail by District Judge Benjamin Hayes.  This was later reconsidered and Shelby was arraigned and posted $2500 bail using saddler John M. Foy, lawyer and former district attorney Ezra Drown, former mayor Thomas Foster, and jailer Francis Carpenter as his bondsmen.

But, when it came time for him to appear in court on 28 July for his trial, Shelby was nowhere to be found.  Getman engaged in a concerted search for his predecessor, but found that Shelby skipped town (and bail) and was, evidently, high-tailing it to Sonora in northern Mexico.

Another interesting development came in mid-May when the council resolved that the finance committee "with the Marshal arrange with the Sheriff of Los Angeles County [David W. Alexander, who was newly elected], [for] the future support and care of city prisoners."

This editorial, from the 5 April 1856 edition of the Los Angeles Star, was critial of the common [city] council's handling of dinances, including large expenditures to the town's jailer, calling such spending mismanagement.

At the next meeting, on 26 May, the finance committee reported "that it had contracted with the Sheriff of Los Angeles County for the support and future care of the City prisoners" at 25 cents per person "until the prisoner shall be sentenced, which shall take place within twenty-four hours after entrance in the City Jail."  Moreover, the report continued, "all prisoners that remain [in] the City Jail after their receiving sentence, the jailor shall be allowed fifty cents per day for each so remaining."  It is notable that "if any prisoner should come into the City Jail on Satirday night and remain Sunday, for each the jailor shall receive 50 cts. each one, although not sentenced."  This seemed to refer to the regular flow of intoxicated persons who were taken to jail after benders on Saturday evenings.

A likely reason for the policy change, came with an announcement in a 19 June letter to the council by Stephen C. Foster, who in the May election was returned to the mayoralty that there were "two suits, which have been commenced against the Corporation [city] by the City Jailor, in the aggregate for the sum of $280."  This amount appears to have represented costs he was charging the city for his services and which led to the policy change of having the sheriff care for prisoner maintenance.

In any event, the finance committee was charged with investigating whether it was Carpenter or the city treasurer, Samuel Arbuckle, who was responsible for the disputed sum and to resolve the issue amicably.  The result was that, four days later, the committee reported that both officials agreed to pay half the $280 and settle the matter.

A portion of listings of city and county expenses, published in El Clamor Público, 14 June 1856.  Note the $800 annual salary of the marshal, relative to other officials, the $500 in the Jail Fund, and another $500 expended towards "maintenance of the prisoners and other costs of the jail in the fiscal year."

A month later, a crisis rocked Los Angeles when a deputized citizen, William W. Jenkins, was charged with serving a writ of attachment for a $50 debt on Antonio Ruiz.  When Jenkins seized a guitar in Ruiz' household, the latter's live-in girlfriend grabbed the instrument, claiming a letter from her mother was in it.  Jenkins pulled a gun and, when Ruiz seized him from behind, Jenkins fired over his shoulder delivering a fatal chest wound to Ruiz.

Spanish-speaking residents gathered on a hill overlooking the town and demanded justice. Rumors of a mob of these individuals looking to storm the jail and lynch Jenkins was met by a popular meeting and an organization of citizens to forestall any potential violence.  Consequently, at an extraordinary session of the council on the same night as the meeting, 23 July, the body received a statement from Mayor Foster about "the propriety of making an appropriation for the maintenance of peace & public order, and to take such measures, as the present circumstances may demand.

In response, the council resolved

that in view of the present critical circumstances, the Corporation upon its part, in conjunction with the County of Los Angeles, does hereby make an appropriation of a sum not to exceed five hundred dollars, for the present to be applied exclusively to the support and maintenance of public order.

William H. Peterson, a former special police officer and deputy sheriff, was appointed the disbursing agent of these funds, but the outlay was not detailed with respect to who would receive monies.  Moreover, the council issued another resolution in which

the Common Council repudiates and condemns all the irregular proceedings that have taken place in this City lately by acts of insubordination and will give its aid and support in suppressing the same and it is further resolved that the foregoing resolutions [this and the previous about the financial appropriation] be read at the public meeting now assembled in front of the Montgomery house [Hotel] on Main Street in the City of Los Angeles.

More will be featured on this blog about the Jenkins-Ruiz affair, but any large-scale violence was avoided.  Still, on 4 August, Peterson appeared before the council to report that about 60% of the appropriation for the suppression of civil unrest was spent--almost certainly on citizen patrols during the tensest moments of the crisis.   Though a week later Peterson was asked to present a full report on the disbursement of funds, there is no surviving record of his statement, if any was given.

The remainder of the year was relatively quiet for the council.  Mayor Foster resigned in mid-September, with El Clamor Público reporting that it was for business reasons and lionizing him for his efficient work.  A special election, presided over by council member and ex-mayor Antonio Franco Coronel, resulted in the elevation of John G. Nichols to the office.

At the end of the month, the council admomished Marshal Getman in a resolution calling his attention to fulfulling his duties by maintaining regular office hours at city hall and to attending council sessions, as per the town's ordinances.

Other than that, 1856 ended on a mundane note, especially considering the problems with yet another marshal in Alfred Shelby and in the concerns expressed by the council about the tension and emotion involved in the Jenkins-Ruiz affair.