The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Criminal Justice, 1853

The second group of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, at work in 1852-53, dealt significantly with the matter of building a new city and county jail, but did so in the context of mounting problems dealing with the fragile financial fortunes of the county.

As noted before, the cadre of five, elected in fall 1852, was an entirely new slate from its predecessors and was a mixture of little-known citizens, like G.A. Sturgis and Daniel M. Thomas  and prominent members of Los Angeles society, namely Benjamin D. Wilson and David W. Alexander.

As their predecessors found, there were some substantial claims made on the county for services rendered by public officials dealing with criminal justice.  One of the first meetings of the new board included an allowance of $1500 as salary for district attorney Kimball H. Dimmick, later a federal district judge, as well as over $300 to jailer George D. Robinson and another $600 to Sheriff James R. Barton, San Gabriel constable J.D. Barker, whose work was probably connected with dealing with the sensational murder of merchant and militia general against southern California Indians, Joshua Bean, justices of the peace and former sheriff George T. Burrill and J. S. Mallard and others.  Expenditures of $2500 at one meeting of the board must have taken a significant part of the county's meager coffers, as will be noted below.

The flow of money continued the next day, with new jailor George W. Whitehorne submitting bills for nearly $200, another $100 from Barton and a smaller amount of money from others, including supervisor Sturgis, who was also serving as justice of the peace at San Gabriel, Burrill, and Dimmick.  At this meeting, Sheriff Barton was also asked to oversee repairs to the Court House, a rented adobe that was, seemingly, in perpetual need of significant work, when band-aid repairs were usually what could be afforded.

Financial matters came to a head on 1 December, when Whitehorne submitted bills totaling a little over $160 for jail services and was informed that there was a lack of funds and he would have to wait until funds were received before getting paid.  The county treasurer, Francis Mellus, reported to the council that there simply were no funds to cover expenses.

In the first meeting of 1853, held on 3 January, the requests for payment kept coming, totaling well over $700 with most of the money being for jail expenses (this proved to almost always be the case) and to Sheriff Barton for summoning juries and for constable William B. Osburn for attending the justice court of Burrill in Los Angeles.

Two days later, the contract executed with J.D. Hunter to build the jail was annulled with the reason given that it was "by an act of Providence he is now prevented from proceeding with it," though what the providential act was did not get recorded.  The minutes also stated "that the locality of said Jail is unsuitable & the plan on which it was to be built not conforming to the requirements of the Law."  It also would appear that, given the financial strictures noted above, there was not enough money to contemplate continuing with the jail project.

In fact, at the 5 January meeting, it was reported that the county's debt was nearing $50,000, a significant sum given the low revenue it received and treasurer Mellus stated that this condition "will not suffice to build a suitable Jail, the imperative necessity of which is felt by all the people of the County."

Consequently, the board voted to petition 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."  This, evidently, went nowhere.

More expenditures, almost in mind-numbing sameness, came in the following few months, most of this, again, being for the maintenance of the jail, but also substantially comprised of fees for constables, the sheriff, and other officers for their work.  The board issued a new order for allowing the jailor $5 a day for his services and $1 per day for wood and candles.  Matters were such that county clerk Wilson W. Jones requested, through the District Court, that an audit of accounts be done because he was owned a considerable sum (unstated) for his services.

Perhaps the financial problems of the county were too much for Leonardo Cota and Daniel M. Thomas, who resigned in early July, just a few months shy of the end of the term.  William Foster and James R. Waite were appointed to finish out the term.

David W. Alexander, left, with long-time friend and rancher William Workman, shown in 1851 in New York, was chair of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in 1852-53 and later a sheriff in 1856 and 1876-77.  Courtesy of the Workman and Temple Family Homestead Museum.

At a meeting two days later, the board resolved that, "in view of the expense of the Rent of the building at present occupied as the Jail of Los Angeles County, [it is] 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."   The board ordered Sheriff Barton, who was the tax collector, to remit $70 from the first available funds and rent a new building, owned by F.I. Alvarado, for the jail, provided that Barton was "to repair the same as to make it suitable for that purpose," whatever "suitable" entailed.

The situation was such that, on 11 July, the board voted to slash the district attorney's salary in half from $1500 to $750, payable quarterly, while jailor's fees and those of the constables and sheriff continued to absorb most of the budget.

In early August, the board came to terms with prominent merchant Jonathan Temple to buy the Rocha Adobe, on the west side of Spring Street, for a court house and county offices, the price being $3160.  $1000 was apportioned immediately for repairs.  Further, the board "ordered that a County and City Jail be built on the Rocha lot aforesaid according to the law & specifications presented by S.C. Foster & filed with the Clerk and the said Foster and W.T.B. Sanford constitute a committee to contract for the materials and Building of said Jail."

The total cost of the jail was not to exceed $6000, with the city of Los Angeles having a 1/4 interest through a $1500 lien on the property.  The city jail was to occupy the first floor and the city and jailor were to share a room as an office.  Meanwhle, the city was granted the use of two rooms in the northeast corner of the Rocha Adobe for its use.  The city's total share of costs was to be $1500 up front and $1000 after a year.  The board also mandated that 10 cents on each 100 dollars of taxable property was to go to a contingent fund to aid in the purchase and building of county structures up to a maximum of $7000.

Foster would soon be mayor of Los Angeles during one of its frequent crime crises--this being the spate of murders in late 1854 that led to a notorious execution of Felipe Alvitre and lynching of Dave Brown in the first part of 1855, for which Foster helped lead the lynching after resigning as mayor.  He then was promptly reelected in the special election that followed!

Once the deals with Temple, Foster and Sanford were inked, a new issue came up as crime rose dramatically during the spring and early summer of 1853.  The supervisors, on 11 August, resolved that

whereas in the opinion of this Board, it is proper & necessary to aid the well directed efforts of certain citizens of this County, in their endeavour to preserve the public peace, and as the aforesaid Citizens have organized a Volunteer Company for that purpose, under command of A.W. Hope, [it is] ordered that, accounts for the expenses of maintaining horses & such reasonable acc[oun]ts for equipments &c to the amount of one thousand dollars & no farther under any consideration [was to be apportioned].

This was the county's official "seal of approval" for the Los Angeles Rangers, the best known of many militia groups that formed in Los Angeles over the first few decades of the American era and the one that was most successful in carrying out paramilitary operations in the area of criminal justice administration.

 A new board was seated in early October 1853 after the election of the month prior. More on this third edition of the Board of Supervisors in the next post.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Criminal Justice, 1852

By the terms of California's first constitution, ratified in late 1849, nearly a year before Congress belatedly bestowed statehood, the responsibility for the administration of counties was given to the Court of Sessions.

This body was headed by the county judge and assisted by two justices of the peace from among the county's townships--these latter were administrative entities aside from the incorporated towns and cities within the county.  For Los Angeles County, only the city of Los Angeles was incorporated for many years, so the outlying townships, such as El Monte, San Gabriel, San Juan Capistrano, and the Los Angeles township surrounding the city, had their justice of the peace and constables charged with maintaining law and order in their jurisdiction.

The Court of Sessions not only had to try to be the governing authority for the massive county, which, while having a small population of under just under 10,000 persons, stretched from the Pacific Ocean to the Colorado River and from Ventura to San Diego counties, embracing part of which became Kern County later, but it had the bulk of the business to conduct in the administration of criminal and civil court matters, as well.  For criminal justice, the Sessions court heard all major crimes, except capital murder, rape and a few others, such as arson, though some of the types of cases changed over time.

So, while the court did its best to serve its legislated duties, it was clear from almost the beginning of its operations, starting in the very late spring of 1850, that something had to be done to divide responsibilities.  The state legislature responded by creating boards of supervisors for California's counties, with these entities to start their work in mid-1852.  Not long afterward, the decision was made to reduce Los Angeles County's incredible mass by creating San Bernardino County, which remains the largest county in size in all of America.

In the spring 1852 elections, five citizens were elected to the inaugural Board of Supervisors for Los Angeles County--and it remains that number today, which is stunning given the enormous population of the county of just under 10 million, rather than around 10,000 some 150 years ago.  These men included:

• Jefferson Hunt, a prominent member of the Mormon Battalion sent by the church from Utah to California at the end of the Mexican-American War and who, as an California assembly member introduced the legislation that created San Bernardino County, because the town of San Bernardino was then a Mormon town.  Hunt was back in Utah by 1860 and died in Idaho in 1879.
• Julián Chavez, a native of New Mexico who migrated to Los Angeles in the 1830s, who held political office from time to time between then and the early 1870s, and whose property in the hills north of downtown Los Angeles became the famed Chavez Ravine.  Chavez also died in 1879 in Los Angeles.
• Samuel Arbuckle, born in Pennsylvania, and who became a merchant and auctioneer in his many years in Los Angeles.  His sole turn in public office, however, was his one-year stint with the first cadre of supervisors.  He died in Los Angeles in 1874.
• Manuel Requena, a native of Campieto, Mexico, who came to Los Angeles in 1834 with the Hijar-Padres colony, which included the politically active Coronels and Olveras.  Requena, as already noted on this blog, was a member of the first common (city) council in Los Angeles and served at the same time as a supervisor--something that could be done in those days.  He served many terms as a council member and was briefly mayor, but served only two years as a supervisor.  Requena died in 1876.
• F.P.F. Temple, who was the only supervisor not born in the first decade of the century, being born in 1822 in Reading, Massachusetts near Boston.  He came to Los Angeles in 1841 to join a half-brother, Jonathan, often mentioned in this blog, and worked in his brother's store.  Married into the Workman family of Rancho La Puente in the eastern San Gabriel Valley, Temple was the second Los Angeles city treasurer. He, too, served a single term with the supervisors and was county treasurer in 1876-78, during which time his bank failed, leaving him the dubious distinction of being the only bankrupt treasurer (albeit with a deputy doing the day-to-day work)!

The first meeting was held on 5 July 1852, but basically only to present the certification of the election of the five supervisors.  Two weeks later, on the 19th, with Temple absent, the board conducted its initial business, including ordering a proposal to be advertised in the Los Angeles Star newspaper for a new jail.  The notice offered that the successful bidder would receive half the determined amount in cash for construction upon completion, but the other half in scrip (basically,an I.O.U. payable when the county had the money).  Proposals were due on 4 August.

On the meeting of that day (with Temple again absent), the board dealt with the matter of the existing contract with George Robinson, the jailor--namely, it ordered it canceled and a new one drawn up.  The provisions were that he be given $3 per day, half in cash and half in, you guessed it, scrip (no wonder that the performance of local officials was often questionable, to say the leased, if part of your compensation was provisional on available future funding!)  The agreement also specified that the jailor receive 50 cents a day for candles and two loads of wood per month, as well as 25 cents a day per person for food for prisoners.

F.P.F. Temple (1822-1880), with his son, John, about 1858, was on the first Los Angeles County of Board of Supervisors, though frequently absent during the first part of the abbreviated term, which lasted all of four months.  From the Workman and Temple Family Homestead Museum collection.

A special meeting of the 5th (again, Temple was not present), had a number of claims presented by officials for payment by the county.  Justice of the Peace J.S. Mallard requested $87 for attending as an associate justice at the Court of Sessions.  George T. Burrill, who was the first county sheriff, was in 1852 the county coroner and the other associate justice at the Sessions court and asked for $96 for the two offices.  Constable William B. Osburn, a veteran lawman in Los Angeles, requested $81.10. Current sheriff James R. Barton, murdered while on duty in 1857, placed his claims for $29,50 for general duties and $152 for attending the Sessions court as, basically, a bailiff, as well as serving summonses for trial and grand juries.  Notably, the board only approved $25 for the jury work and stated the remainder of his $127 court claims were invalid as not allowable by law.  Through his attorneys, Jonathan R. Scott and Lewis Granger, Barton filed an exception and it is not known what happened to that action.

The following day, the 6th (guess who wasn't there?), more officials came looking for payment.    Robinson asked for over $500 for various services, including guarding prisoners, candles, wood, and "feeding lunatics", among others.  There isn't a record, though, of what Robinson was given.  Lewis Granger, who served as the district attorney in 1851 and 1852, was actually ordered to remit $375 back to the county, evidently because of overpayment for his services.

On 30 August (yup, Temple did show up for this meeting and one prior), the board was presented with the offer of the successful jail contractor.  J.D. Hunter, a Mormon Battalion captain who came to town with Hunt in 1847, was awarded the contract, which called for him to be paid $3,000 in cash up front and $4,000 in cash when the work was done--obviously, the whole scrip matter was dispensed with, probably because no one would bid on a project with that provision.  Hunter, who offered a bond of $14,000 as security for the contact, was given nine months to finish the work.

As a fall election was on the docket, mid-September business for the board included confirming the existing townships of Los Angeles, San Gabriel, San Jose (present Pomona area), San Bernardino (soon to be spun off in the new county), Santa Ana (before the town in present Orange County was created but in the general area), and San Juan Capistrano.   Then, a new one, San Salvador, which embraced the former Agua Mansa community of principally New Mexican settlers, who came to the area in the early 1840s, was created in what later became Riverside County.

At the 15 September meeting, Dr. Alpheus P. Hodges, who had been Los Angeles' first mayor and coroner, presented a bill for $420, constituting 84 visits to the jail at $5 each.  Hodges, who only served a single one-year term as mayor, remained in town for a few years before returning to his native Virginia, where he died in 1858 at only 36 years of age.

Among the later business of the first board were more official claims for payment, including $230.50 for Sheriff Barton "allowed on mandamus and costs."  What mandamus essentially means is that Barton was negligent, intentionally or not, in carrying out his legally mandated duties, so a court order was issued to force him to do the work required.  The details are not known, but it is possible Barton chose not to carry out these duties because his previous claims for work had been rejected by the board, but this is only speculation. 

The abbreviated first term of the inaugural Board of Supervisors came to a close in mid-November, when the newly elected group of five were seated (Requena, the only incumbent seeking reelection narrowly lost his attempt to retain his seat).  These included:

• David W. Alexander, born in Ireland in 1811 and who migrated to California in 1842 from New Mexico.  Alexander was a merchant and rancher, who served twice as county sheriff in 1856 (resigning abruptly, probably because of a near riot that summer) and again in 1876-77.  He died in 1876
• Leonardo Cota, a native of Mexico who married into the prominent Yorba family and who was a captain in the Californio defense forces during the American invasion of 1846-47 alongside his cousin, General Andrés Pico, playing a valuable role in the Battle of San Pasqual victory over the Americans.  Cota was later a founder of Santa Ana and died in 1887.
• G.A. Sturgis is something of a mystery figure, there being almost no information about him, except that he served a single term from November 1852 to November 1853 on the board.
• Daniel M. Thomas was born in North Carolina about 1817 and came to Los Angeles from Utah, so he was likely a Mormon.  He was a farmer, but little else is known about Thomas, who also served a single term.
• Benjamin D. Wilson, of whom volumes can be (and have been) written.  Born in 1811 in Tennessee, Wilson spent eventful years in New Mexico, before coming to California in late 1841 intent on going to China.  Literally missing the boat, he bought the Rancho Jurupa in the present Riverside area, married into the Yorba family, like fellow supervisor Cota, and became exceptionally prominent in politics (serving, for example, as Los Angeles mayor and a state senator, as well as a federal Indian agent), ranching and business, and other enterprises.  He died in 1878.

The next post will pick up the work of the second set of supervisors for the remainder of 1852 and most of 1853.

The Big House IV: San Quentin State Prison and Los Angeles County Inmates

The fifth Los Angeles County resident sent up "to the big house" at San Quentin State Prison was Atanacio Moreno, who arrived at the facility on 10 April 1854, and whose story was told here in an April post.

Moreno was followed by an Indian named Juan Chapo, who was delivered to San Quentin on 4 August.  Juan Chapo was tried before the District Court on a charge of manslaughter because, as recorded in the diary of that court's jurist, Benjamin Hayes, he was "indicated for killing an Indian woman.  He was in a deep state of intoxication at the time.  It occurred at Mr. Jno Roland's."

This was the ranch of John Rowland, owner of some 24,000 acres comprising half of the massive Rancho La Puente in the eastern San Gabriel Valley.  Rowland had a large population of Gabrieleño Indians working for him and Juan Chapo was undoubtedly one of the ranch's laborers.

The register listing for prisoner #414 at San Quentin State Prison, Juan Chapo, a Gabrieleño Indian who pled guilty to killing Anselma, an Indian woman, during a drunken state and sentenced to one year and a $1 fine based on "an excellent character."  Click on the images to see them enlarged in separate windows.

Hayes did not provide any further information concerning the circumstances of the killing of the woman, named as Anselma in court documents, but he did note that "an excellent characer [was] proved for him."  Consequently, Hayes went on, "the Court sentenced him to one year in the state prison" after Juan Chapo pled guilty.  Strangely, Hayes also pronounced a fine of $1.

It is also notable that, in the San Quentin register, there is no occupation listed nor are there the physical descriptions of heights, complextion, and color of eyes and hair usually given.  The only other notation was that Juan Chapo was discharged a couple of weeks early on 22 July 1855 and then faded from history.

The other prisoner confined at San Quentin around this time was a notable character in Los Angeles:  José Serbulo Varela.  Varela was from an old, established family in town, dating back to its early Spanish-era period.  During the Mexican-American War, he served in the Californio forces defending the town and region against the American invasion.

In 1846, when a cadre of Americans, who gathered for mutual protection at the Rancho Santa Ana del Chino's adobe home of its owner Isaac Williams, on what is now the grounds of Boys Republic, a troubled youth facility in Chino Hills, were captured, there was a serious consideration of executing the group.  This included the John Rowland mentioned above, as well as prominent Angeleno Benjamin D. Wilson, namesake of Mount Wilson, and others.

Varela, however, refused to consider the idea and told his fellow Californios that they would have to kill him before trying to take out revenge against the American prisoners, who were held for a substantial period before finally being released.  From that point forward, Varela, it was said, was held in the highest esteem by Americans, to the point that, whenever he fell afoul of the law, which was often, he was invariably bailed out and released.

Jose Serbulo Varela, a hero to many Anglos for his defense of Americans captured at the Battle of Chino and threatened with summary execution in 1846 during the Mexican-American War, was convicted of perjury and sentenced to a year at San Quentin, registering as prisoner #400.  Varela was found murdered in an irrigation ditch in 1860.

Charged for petty larceny and perjury in a crime against Santiago Feliz, of the family which owned the Los Feliz Rancho northwest of downtown Los Angeles, Varela was acquitted of the larceny charge, but convicted of perjury, evidently in his sworn statement of what took place in the matter with Feliz.

On 16 June 1854, he was sentenced to a year at San Quentin and registered ten days later as prisoner #400.  The 5'5 1/2" Varela, listed as 41 years of age and with dark complexion, hair and eyes and with the occupation as a laborer, served out his term and was discharged, presumably on or just before 26 June 1855.

Varela, who was said to be a drunkard, continued to attract trouble, but was always put out on his liberty because of his conduct at Chino, until his luck ran out in September 1860, when he was stabbed to death and his body found in the zanja madre (the mother ditch used for irrigation in town) at Los Angeles.

"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.