ETHNICS
While the Chinese question elicited more letters than those written about
all other ethnic groups combined, Times readers did express their feelings
about Indians, African Americans {or "colored" men and women, to use the term
most commonly used at that time}, Hispanics and other hyphenated-Americans.
Although their comments were less heated, they were as badly divided in their
attitudes toward these groups as they were toward the Chinese.
A} INDIANS
The original site of the pueblo in 1781 was near the Indian village
located south of the present-day Union Station. Estimates by Guinn and other
early historians suggest that the local Indian population at that time
approximated 300, and at the twenty or more other villages scattered throughout
what would become the modern county the total number of Indians was near 4000.
A census in 1830 counted 198 Indians within the pueblo. Following mission
secularization by the Mexican government in the early 1830s and the subsequent
dispossession of the Mission Indians, their population in Los Angeles increased
as they sought security in the pueblo. But while an Indian population remained
in or near the town, the last vestiges of the village disappeared by 1836.
At the time of American acquisition Indians in the town numbered about 500,
and those within the county remained at about 4000. The questionable
statistics contained in the census of 1870 reported 114 Indians in the city,
another 99 in Los Angeles township exclusive of the city, and 1 Indian at Santa
Ana. None were reported in other portions of the county, although other
records make clear that scattered settlements did exist.
One of those settlements was near the San Fernando mission. Following
secularization, that mission's property had been taken by the government before
passing into private ownership. In 1846 Eulogio De Celis purchased an interest
in the mission's lands from General Andres Pico, who had previously obtained it
from the government. The De Celis portion, when finally confirmed by the
federal land claims commission, was reportedly the largest rancho in the
county, consisting of over 121,000 acres. Pico subsequently sold the bulk of
his share to the San Fernando Farm Homestead Association, an enterprise
dominated by Isaac N. Van Nuys and the Lankershims. In 1874 the De Celis
family sold more than 50,000 acres of their holdings, including the old
mission, to George and B. F. Porter and former state senator Charles Maclay,
who founded the city of San Fernando that year.
Near the mission lived a small band of Indians, headed by Rogerio Rocha,
who had been born there about 1801 and had been baptized at the mission in
1810. When Maclay had Rogerio and the others evicted by court order in 1885,
an anonymous letter appeared in the Times, followed by an exchange of letters
written by Robert M. Widney, Maclay's nephew, attorney and business associate,
and by a son of Eulogio De Celis, who was represented by attorney Anson
Brunson. Assisting in the eviction was deputy sheriff, and later San Quentin
warden, Martin Aguirre. Shortly after Rogerio's death at age 102 or 103 in
1904, Horatio N. Rust {appointed government agent to the Mission Indians in
1889 and the author of letters printed elsewhere in this volume} lamented the
eviction in an Out West article, endorsing the De Celis version as related in
the letters that follow.
{Times, Nov. 21, 1885, p. 4}
Rights of Natives of the Soil.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: Yesterday I was
reading Helen Hunt Jackson's story, "Ramona." Profoundly
moved by the recital of the wrongs and miseries of the
Indians, driven from their homes, where their fathers had
lived before them, I was comforted by the reflection that it
was only a story, probably exaggerated, and that it was
impossible such things should happen again. Enlightened
Christian feeling would not permit it. Judge of my
astonishment, therefore, on taking up your paper this morning
and reading the following:
Deputy Sheriff Aguirre: "Will Hammell and I have just
got back from San Fernando, where we dispossessed the Mission
Indians for Judge Widney and Senator Maclay. They have been
there about 80 years, I think; had two good houses - a lot of
property. We had to load their stuff on a wagon and cart it
off. There were eleven Indians in all, and they all came
away peaceably except the old Capitan. We had to grab him
and throw him on the wagon to get him away."
What can it mean?
{Times, Nov. 22, 1885, p. 1}
THE SAN FERNANDO INDIANS.
Statement of Judge Widney as to Their Eviction.
Judge R. M. Widney, in response to a question concerning
the eviction of the Indians at San Fernando a few days ago,
said: "A wrong impression seems to have got out about this
matter. In the first place, all but three of the Indians are
recent arrivals, coning here from San Luis Obispo. The three
mentioned were formerly connected with the Mission, but were
"shoved out" by some one. They were allowed to occupy the
portion of the ranch they have lived on for some years, the
understanding being that when the land was wanted for
settlement they must move off. Some time ago a judgment was
rendered against them for the land, the purpose being to
prevent the statute of limitations from taking effect. When
Maclay sold to the new company he proceeded to survey where
the Indians had been cultivating, and offered them $150 for
their improvements. About this time the Indians were advised
by certain attorneys not to go away. Later an execution was
taken out and placed in the hands of Sheriff Gard, who was
authorized to pay them $100. The Indians were seen, and they
promised to leave in ten days, but in the meantime they were
advised again by their attorneys not to do so. The latter
now proceeded to move to set aside the judgment on the ground
that it was void. This the court, after a careful hearing,
refused to do. The new company wished to use water from a
spring on the land for a brickyard, but the Indians (by
advice of their attorneys) refused to let them have it, and,
at considerable expense, a yard was established elsewhere.
The sheriff was now instructed to rent them a house for one
month in Los Angeles, or, if they preferred it, at the
Mission. If they were not satisfied with this arrangement he
was to let them have an abundant supply of provisions. These
offers were rejected, the attorneys of the Indians advising
them to resist dispossession even to violence. (Evidence to
this effect is in writing in the hands of Senator Maclay.)
The Sheriff proceeded to move them off without any resistance
on their part, except in the case of one old Indian. They
were all given food and a house at San Fernando, and the
accommodations were accepted, except by the old Indian
mentioned. A day or two ago he went to Senator Maclay and
said, 'I do not blame you for putting us off, as we had no
rights there. We would not have done as we did had we not
been badly advised.' He asked for provisions and was given a
liberal supply. The Indians have been a great nuisance and
their rancheria has been a rendezvous for horse thieves and
other bad characters."
Statements diametrically opposite to these have reached
the Times, and will be investigated.
{Times, Nov. 24, 1885, p. 4}
THE SAN FERNANDO INDIANS.
The Indians' Side of the Controversy.
Ex-Judge R. M. Widney has been misinformed in a few
respects regarding the eviction of the Indians at San
Fernando, and, being in possession of all the facts, I will
state them briefly.
The impression created is not wrong; it is, in fact, too
mild; if the full facts had been known it certainly might
have been stronger.
The Indians from San Luis Obispo, if any there were, cut
no figure in the matter. The only ones entitled to stay
there for the length of their lives were Rogerio and his
wife. He (Rogerio) was born on the spot he occupied, was
raised there, has lived there ever since, and is over 80
years old.
There was only one understanding about them and other
old Indians on the ranch at the time it was purchased by
Messrs. Maclay and Porter, and this was that the clause in
the original deed from the government to my father, "that the
old Indians were to be protected in the possession of the
small tracts they occupied as long as they lived," would be
respected and observed. Mr. Porter has kept his word so far.
A judgment in ejectment against Rogerio was obtained by
sharp practice on one side and neglect or oversight on the
other. It was the opinion of the United States attorneys for
the Mission Indians of California that the above judgment
lapsed, and they think so yet.
In view of the facts in the case, the United States
attorneys aforesaid advised Rogerio "not to give up the
possession voluntarily, but to allow himself to be arrested,
if necessary." The Hon. ex-Senator Maclay cannot produce any
written evidence that the old Indian was by anybody advised
to resist the officers of the law. The instructions
mentioned, the "one old Indian," the only one concerned in
the matter, followed to the letter. He allowed himself to be
ejected against his protest.
There may have been offers to pay him money, to rent
houses for him and give him provisions. The Indian denies
it, and I believe the Indian. Only in one instance, he says,
they offered him money to sign a paper. He very properly
refused.
They were not given a house and food at San Fernando
when ejected; they were dumped on the county road; their
chickens were packed in sacks and died, of course. So says
the "one old Indian," and I believe him.
Rogerio, the "one old Indian," had two substantial adobe
houses on his place, fruit tress and vines which tell of more
than a few years occupancy. He was never known to be a
harborer of thieves, being also remarkable for never drinking
liquor at all, an example that some citizens of San Fernando
might have imitated with advantage.
The facts stated I know to be true, and they can be
substantiated by the record.
Finally, the ten acres of Rogerio may be turned into
bricks and reared in splendid monuments to heaven, but the
unjust and heartless conduct of the builders will still be
remembered when the monument crumbles into dust.
E. F. De Celis.
{Times, Nov. 28, 1885, p. 3}
The San Fernando Indians.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: Mr. E. F. De Celis,
replying to my former statement, in some things he is
correct, in others not. The original statement that eleven
Mission Indians had been dispossessed is now modified by Mr.
De Celis, and he states only two out of the eleven had any
right there during their lives. Mr. De Celis says: "It was
the opinion of the United States attorneys for the Mission
Indians of California, that the judgment lapsed, and they
think so yet." I quote from a letter signed by said
attorney, as follows: "Upon the second investigation it was
found that certain irregularities which were supposed to
exist, were not supported by the records, since which time we
have given no advice to any person regarding the subject
matter." Mr. De Celis says that no writing can be produced
showing that the Indian was advised to resist. I quote as
follows from Mr. De Celis's letter to Senator Maclay,
November 10, 1885: "---------- -----------, (naming the
attorney for the Indians,) instructed me to tell Rogerio not
to leave the possession, but to submit even to nothing but
actual force, and if necessary to allow himself to be
arrested. I told that to Rogerio." It is but justice to
said attorney to quote again from his letter subsequently
written, as follows: "I informed Rogerio, through Mr. De
Celis, that he should remain upon the land until the officer
should put him off; in other words, that he was not to go off
voluntarily, but when the officer commanded him to go, he was
then to leave." Mr. De Celis seems to convey the idea that
no money was offered the Indians. When Sheriff Gard went out
with the first writ I told him to let the Indians take off
all their improvements, and then to give them $100. After
putting me to over $100 expense, costs, and damage, when the
second writ was issued, I told the Sheriff to let them take
their improvements and to pay them the value of anything they
left, and give them $50 besides. When the Sheriff finally
went out after we had incurred several hundred dollars' costs
and damage, I told him to rent a house in Los Angeles city
and move them into it by teams or on the cars, if they had no
other place to go. Or, if they would not do that, to rent a
house in San Fernando, or at the Mission, and put them in
there; and that when he moved them to pay them for anything
they left, and if they needed provisions to buy, at San
Fernando, ten sacks of flour, more or less, as he thought
best, and other provisions for them, and Maclay would pay the
bill.
Mr. De Celis says Rogerio was never known to be a
harborer of thieves. Mr. Hubbard and Wright, who live within
a few feet of where the Indians were, aided a former Sheriff
in surrounding one of the Indian's houses and watching for a
fugitive from justice harbored there. They can tell a
different story from Mr. De Celis from their years'
experience as a neighbor.
Finally, a man (not Mr. De Celis) came to me at the
beginning of this matter, and said that he had arranged to
take the Indians away to a place he had in the mountains, and
when moved off he would sell us a water right for $10,000.
There was a small spring of about one or two inches of water
where the Indians were, which may have created the idea that
we would pay a large sum for it. We have no occasion to use
the small flow, as we sink artesian wells on other grounds.
Finally, Rogerio and wife went to the mission and have a
house there furnished by Mr. Pico, who tried to have them
come there before the sheriff moved them off, and when they
went they took provisions furnished by Senator Maclay. They
were removed because they interfered with the subdivision
and development of the rancho, and were evidently controlled
by some outside parties, whom I have not named, who desired
to make money out of the matter.
R. M. WIDNEY.
{Times, Nov. 29, 1885, p. 5}
Card of Thanks.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I am indeed thankful
to the Hon. R. M. Widney for coming forward so kindly and
corroborating the facts mentioned in my plain statement of
facts about the eviction of the old San Fernando Indians. I
hope the Judge will also admit that the small portion he
quotes from my letter means nothing like resistance "to the
proper authority;" also that the "irregularities" referred to
in the United States Attorney's letter, do not refer to the
judgment direct; also that Messrs. Hubbard and Wright live
more than a few feet away from Rogerio's native hearth; also
that suspicion of evil is no proof of evil existing, as
witness a watch set at San Fernando upon Deputy Sheriff
Russell of Downey, under the idea that he and his traveling
companion were horse thieves. If Judge Widney will be kind
enough to make these few admissions, he will be more in the
right, and I will forget (kindly) his contradictions of his
former statement.
Yours truly,
E. F. De Celis.
On occasion the situation was reversed. Those evicted were not Indians but
white settlers who had taken up land claimed by various tribes. When the U. S.
Supreme Court upheld an Indian claim to land at San Jacinto, the Times
editorially sympathized with those whites who suddenly held a clouded title to
property there, drawing a response from Edward Bouton, former owner of a large
tract of land at San Jacinto. Perhaps what the Times had in mind was an
earlier incident, at Banning, where the tragedy of eviction, Indian or white,
had been touchingly described by "Quien."
{Times, Feb. 12, 1888, p. 6}
The San Jacinto Land Decision.
Los Angeles, Feb. 10.--[To the Editor of The Times.] In
your issue of this morning you say:
"The Supreme Court of California has decided the
celebrated San Jacinto land case, giving to Indians the right
to hold their lands. This is hard on those who hold a United
States patent for a portion of the land, and shows the great
need of circumspection in carefully examining titles,
especially where the land has been covered by a Spanish
grant."
These Indians and their ancestors had been in peaceful
possession of this land for 150 years when the grant was
made, in 1842 or thereabouts. Their rights and possessions
were recognized by the Mexican authorities, and they were
named in the grant. The United States patent which I
procured was subject to their claims. When I was the
principal owner of the San Jacinto rancho I always recognized
the rights of these people. In this case the equities are on
the side of the Indians, and I think the decision a just one.
E. BOUTON.
{Times, Oct. 12, 1887, p. 6}
Government Eviction.
AN OLD MAN DRIVEN FROM HIS HOME TO MAKE ROOM FOR INDIANS.
Los Angeles, Oct. 11.--[To the Editor of The Times.] It
may surprise some of your readers to know that there is being
carried out one of the most contemptible outrages that was
ever perpetrated under the ruling of any civilized
government. Talk of free America! It is a mockery!
The facts of the case are as follows: Over ten years
ago S. Z. Millard, at that time broken down in health,
without means and with a family to support, moved on a piece
of vacant Government land and commenced to clear the brush,
develop water and make for himself a house.
Some months after his settlement the Government made a
reservation for the Mission Indians. This reservation
adjoins Banning, in San Bernardino county.
Mr. and Mrs. Millard have worked hard for years upon
their place, undergoing great hardships and privations. They
made themselves a home, and are now just beginning to reap
some benefits from their labors. Mr. Millard has erected
buildings, developed water at great cost and raised his
orchard. He is a native-born citizen, and has always been
loyal. He is now 66 years old, and he and his wife are
growing quite feeble. Mr. Millard must soon cease his labors
on earth.
And now comes the outrage. Mr. Millard is ordered to
vacate--leave his home, all his earthly possessions, as his
farm is claimed in the reservation, which was created after
he located and began improving.
There is nothing offered him for his long years of
labor, nothing to support him in his declining years. He and
his aged wife are turned out on the world. A few years ago
he could earn a living at his trade, but now he can not.
What kind of justice is this? There are several families
evicted under similar circumstances.
QUIEN.
If the city's Indians were "noble savages" that description did not come
across in the writings of Newmark, Spalding, Willard, Guinn or the other
chroniclers of local history. Instead, readers find them characterized as a
breed not only unfit for assimilation {an argument often used by advocates of
Chinese exclusion} but so debased that it was considered unnecessary to refute
the possibility that Indians might assimilate. While an occasional tear might
have been shed facetiously for "Lo, the poor Indian," the more common concern
was how to deal with the few remaining in the area. But when one young woman
of Indian descent was derogatorily referred to as a "squaw" by the Times,
Charles O'Malley came to her defense. His position as clerk to the Adjutant
General, Department of Arizona, headquartered in Los Angeles, probably
accounted for his knowledge of the incident.
{Times, Nov. 30, 1888, p. 6}
Without Regard to Race or Color.
Los Angeles, Nov. 25.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Referring to the article under "The City in Brief," in The
Times of the 25th inst., permit me, in justice to the alleged
"squaw," but not in extenuation of T. A. Gaskins's actions,
to explain matters, as known to me.
Thomas A. Gaskins was a general services clerk at
headquarters, department of Arizona, from October, 1884, to
about May, 1887. During his stay at Prescott, Ariz., where
headquarters were established before their removal to this
city in January, 1887, he formed the acquaintance of Theresa
Schulz, the adopted daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Horne of
Prescott, Ariz., a family well and favorably known throughout
the Territory, the elder son being Recorder of Yavapai
county, the younger son a graduate of West Point, now a
lieutenant of the Fourth Cavalry. There never has been a
breath of reproach upon Miss Schulz's character, and her
relations with Thomas A. Gaskins were those of an
acquaintance only. She came to Los Angeles some time in
July, 1887, and after a renewal of her acquaintance with
Gaskins, who had accompanied headquarters to this city,
married him in October, 1887, I think, with the consent of
her adopted mother. Since that time she has been a good and
faithful wife, suffering so I have been repeatedly told,
through her husband's neglect and harshness, and finally, in
the hour of her greatest need, a mother of two weeks, left by
him without a dime, her room-rent and board bill unpaid, and
her only inheritance her husband's disgraced name.
Mrs. Gaskins has Indian blood in her veins, it is true;
but not more so than the majority of our proudest creole
families in Louisiana. Though, forsooth, why an Indian woman
of character and education should be entitled to less regard
than a white woman of even advantages is not clear to my
perception. Yours very truly,
CHARLES O'MALLEY.
The only editorial postscript Editor Otis appended to a letter regarding
Indians came at the end of this trivial question from an anonymous reader. In
railroad parlance, a non-paying passenger was a "dead head."
{Times, Nov. 14. 1887, p. 5}
Injuns.
Los Angeles, Nov. 13.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Please inform a constant reader if Indians ride free through
this State on the Southern Pacific Railroad, or if they have
to pay fare.
Answer.--That depends upon the sleepless vigilance of
the able conductor. We are not aware that the copper-colored
native is vested with either an inalienable or a
constitutional right to d. h.
B) "COLORED" AMERICANS
Those opposing the removal of Chinese from the work force frequently argued
that California had no adequate labor supply to replace them. "Prosperity"
suggested they be replaced by "colored laborers," and to a letter asking about
the prospects for colored people in Southern California Editor Otis offered his
opinion. The county's colored population, as the Census Bureau termed it, had
risen from 87 African Americans in 1860 to 188 in 1880. By 1890 "persons of
African descent" numbered 1817 in the county, less than half the Chinese
population.
{Times, Dec. 16, 1885, p. 2}
A Good Word for the Colored Laborer.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: There is considerable
said about the going of Chinamen, but where is the laborer to
fill his place? The vast machinery of work must have a power
behind it to make it move. Labor must not come and go at
haphazard, like one having fits and spasms. What is wanted
is the steady laborer, who loves his place and home, with a
desire to drive his stakes and build in the waste places.
There is a laborer of that kind at hand--this is to speak a
good word for him. Surely he ought not to be neglected, for
he is already a citizen, with the power of the ballot. His
morals are above those of the Chinaman. It is scarcely
necessary to say that I mean the colored laborer who is now
being crowded in the Southern States. The writer of this saw
300 colored immigrants passing out of South Carolina and on
their way to Arkansas. Why not bring a few thousand to
Southern California? They are industrious laborers; they
love home and schools and churches. They would fit admirably
to take the place of Chinamen in all departments of labor;
besides, they are a cheery people. Who has not heard and
been pleased with the old-fashioned plantation songs and
quaint negro philosophies? Such human beings have natures to
rise above low levels and become among the most useful
citizens. Somebody should get up a "Negro Immigration
Society." Bring them out here and prove their quality to
benefit this section.
Allow me to subscribe myself,
PROSPERITY.
{Times, Sept. 29, 1888, p. 6}
Inquiries from Texas Colored People.
San Fernando, Sept. 27.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
I have just received a letter that is worthy of insertion in
your paper just at this juncture of the campaign. I will
copy the letter verbatim and it will speak for itself. If
you would not consider it too much trouble I would ask you to
append an answer to it, as I except to answer the gentleman
shortly and my knowledge regarding the resources of our
beautiful and fertile country is somewhat limited:
"Houston (Tex.), Sept., 1888.
"Rev. James Blackledge--My Dear Brother: I write you for
information concerning Southern California as a place
suitable for farming people. Is immigration desired? What
are the inducements, if any for good, honest colored people
who are good farmers, peaceable and industrious? Is the soil
good? What is and what can be raised? Can cotton, corn,
etc., be cultivated successfully? Please answer and give me
information which I may tell the people. A bit of history:
Past and recent outrages upon the colored people of my State
and district, driving out and killing the best of our men,
have caused them to desire to leave for more congenial
climes. We cannot stand the oppression; our manhood and
spirit are crushed out; our lives are insecure, and no
protection from the Governor or officers. Although we go to
ourselves and colonize apart from them, yet they come by
bands of hundreds and kill and drive away from homes, wives
and children our educated and best men. I am presiding elder
of the Houston District (Texas) Conference M. E. Church, and
among the delegates who attended the General Conference at
New York. Please answer as soon as possible, giving the
needed information. Put me in correspondence with any one
else whom you know to be reliable. Yours truly,
"R. H. HARBERT."
[We think there is room for a good class of industrious
colored men--agricultural laborers--in Southern California.
It is not a cotton country, but almost everything else in the
shape of agricultural and horticultural products can be
raised from the prolific soil.--Ed. Times.]
Just as it was considered acceptable to print "news" items that ridiculed
Indians, such as Mrs. Gaskins, African Americans were similarly at the mercy of
the paper's staff. When the Times ran a piece that found humor in what one
reader thought was a subject too serious for laughter, the following letter was
the reader's reply.
{Times, Aug. 18, 1887, p. 6}
Where Does the Laugh Come In.
Los Angeles, Aug. 17.--[To the Editor of The Times.] An
article in this morning's Times gives an account of the
desertion of a "colored lady" by her husband. The conclusion
of the paragraph states that the event has both a "comical
and a serious side," for the reason that the husband left the
wife in rather an "interesting" condition, and without a
dollar. One can readily comprehend the serious aspects of
this affair, which seems to have distressed the poor wife so
grievously; but I, for one, fail to see the "comical" side of
what produced such an abundant flow of tears from the victim.
It may be that I am wanting in a sense of humor. Possibly
the fun of the thing is to be found in the racy style of the
narrative. But could it have been made to tickle the fancy
of any one with a groan of sympathy for the unfortunate if
the actors had been of high social standing? Are we
permitted to laugh at the misfortunes of the lowly, while we
consider seriously and with sympathy the griefs of the great?
W. P. W.
While several historians place the hiring of the city's first black
policemen in Mayor Meredith Snyder's term during the mid 1890s, recent
scholarship indicates that Joseph Green and Robert W. Stewart were the
earliest, appointed simultaneously in 1886. {For more on Stewart, see his
letter in the chapter on politics.} By 1889 George H. Baxter, a porter, was
disenchanted with the assignments given African American policemen. Green was
classified as a city hall janitor in an 1887 directory, giving weight to
Baxter's complaint, and neither Green nor Stewart were listed as policemen
before 1889. A century later Baxter would no doubt have demanded an
examination of the police department's affirmative action program relative to
hiring minorities. On the other hand, one of the most respected members of the
county sheriff's force was Martin Aguirre, hero of the 1886 flood and
descendant of an Hispanic family long established in Los Angeles.
{Times, April 3, 1889, p.3}
Colored Men for the Police Force.
Los Angeles, April 2.--[To the Editor of The Times.] I
ask permission to make the inquiry through your paper why
only two of the applications from colored men to be placed on
the police force were considered, and also why the city
authorities are dilatory in placing the two colored men
appointed on the force to active duty, and why they should be
relegated to janitor duty in the city buildings?
G. H. BAXTER.
The state's constitution barred blacks from voting until ratification of
the 15th Amendment in 1870. When one Southern Californian indicated he would
have continued that voting ban, "Tippecanoe" offered a reply. Ralph Hoyt, a
regular contributor of well-written letters on a variety of subjects, and
"Veteran Observer" offered their support for the right of all Americans to
vote. Hoyt's defense of the Civil Rights Amendments is particularly
impressive.
{Times, Aug. 19, 1888, p. 5}
Some Light on a Dark Subject.
Santa Ana, Aug. 18.--[To the Editor of The Times.] In a
recent letter to The Times from E. E. Keech, secretary of the
Prohibition Club of this place and Candidate for County Clerk
on the Prohibition ticket, that gentleman explains why the
sable orator, Rev. Hector, failed to meet his appointment to
speak in Santa Ana.
In view of the fact that Mr. Keech, in a conversation
with one of our prominent Republicans, gave vent to the
following (or, in substance) language, touching his views on
the negro suffrage question, it may not be out of place to
give him a grain of allowance on the Hector mis-fit:
Said p. r. {prominent Republican - Ed.} was speaking of
the suppressed negro vote at the South and Mr. Keech gave it
as his unqualified opinion that if he could have it his way
the negro ("nigger" to use his own word) "should not be
allowed to vote at all." Why? "Because of their ignorance."
Perhaps Mr. Keech does not favor the negro having the right
to speak even on prohibition. At all events the admirers of
the Rev. Mr. Hector can put this away somewhere, and when
they vote for County Clerk do so consistently. I will also
say right here that Mr. Keech is frequently seen hobnobbing
with that class of Democrats who believe in a solid South at
all hazards, in other words the "shotgun policy," to squelch
the negro Republican vote, and yet he claims to have been a
Republican once. Shades of Horace Greeley!
TIPPECANOE.
{Times, Oct. 31, 1886, p. 3}
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.
Los Angeles, Oct. 30.--[To the Editor of The Times.] In
view of the political situation in the South the question
arises, what shall be done with the later constitutional
amendments--commonly known as "the fruits of the war?" Shall
they be enforced or repealed? Every existing law or
constitutional provision that can not be enforced should be
abrogated. It is sickening to think how justice is
burlesqued and the public mind debauched in this country by
the existence of "dead-letter" laws--national, state and
municipal. Laws which nobody respects because they are never
enforced. The thirteenth amendment to the Federal
Constitution, adopted in 1865, abolished slavery and thereby
broke what had been the backbone of the slaveholders'
rebellion. But how about the amendments that followed? The
fourteenth amendment, adopted in 1868, and the fifteenth,
adopted in 1870, were intended to confer the rights of
citizenship upon the colored race, removing all distinction
on account of color and making black and white people equal
before the law. This is as it should be. But,
unfortunately, these amendments have never been followed up
by the necessary legislation. After the colored men of the
South had been minimally enfranchised, and the representation
of these States in Congress and in the Electoral College
thereby increased, the black voters were practically left to
shift for themselves - to enjoy these newly acquired rights
and privileges only if agreeable to their former owners and
overseers. Otherwise they should say nothing about them. It
is well known how in five or six of those States, the colored
people have enjoyed(?) these privileges and exercised these
rights. It is well known, and the proof is overwhelming,
that physical force with a representative Southern Bourbon is
a more potent factor in shaping elections than are all the
constitutional amendments ever adopted. It is well known
that a majority of the legal voters in these States (who are
registered Republicans) are practically disfranchised. This
is done in defiance of the plain provisions of the
constitution. The fourteenth and fifteenth amendments are
deliberately nullified by Bourbon brutality. Well may we
inquire, what kind of a Government have we, anyhow?
When an American citizen, who happens to be in a foreign
land, is deprived of a legal right, our Government
immediately gets up on its dignity, shows its teeth, and
demands that the wronged citizen be treated fairly. And in
doing so, the Government voices the sentiment of the whole
country. But right here in our own land, under the alleged
"protecting folds of the Stars and Stripes," the
constitutional rights of tens of thousands of our people are
trampled to the earth every four years, and yet the
Government tolerates the outrage.
The closing section of each of the constitutional
amendments says: "Congress shall have the power to enforce
this article by appropriate legislation." But Congress has
not done so. If it had, the old Democratic serpent would
never have succeeded in swallowing the Government. He would
be so nearly dead as to find difficulty in even moving his
tail, and James G. Blaine would now be President. Of course
the "appropriate legislation" to enforce these amendments
will never be had from a Democratic administration. The most
that a Republican Senate can hope to accomplish under
Cleveland's reign is to prevent the Democrats from so
changing the election laws that a fair election and an honest
count will be as nearly impossible for Republican voters in
the North as they now are in the South.
The fourth article of the original constitution declares
that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in
this Union a republican form of government." Now, if this
means anything, it certainly means that every citizen of
every State and every portion of every State shall be
protected in the exercise of all the rights conferred upon
him by the constitution and the laws made in pursuance
thereof.
At the earliest possible day we must have a Congress and
President that will enforce the fourteenth and fifteenth
amendments, at all hazards and at whatever cost. Otherwise
the time is not far away when the Constitution of our country
will not be worth the paper on which it is printed. Voters
should bear these facts in mind, especially when choosing
members of Congress and legislators, whose duty it will be to
elect United States Senators.
RALPH E. HOYT.
{Times, Nov. 17, 1888, p. 5}
The Solid South.
Los Angeles, Nov. 13.--[To the Editor of The Times.] A
leading Democratic politician of South Carolina is reported
in this morning's papers as saying that if the Republicans
would give the South the assurance that they would leave her
alone to manage her own State affairs, etc., the people of
that section would break up the solid South. In parallel
columns with this outgiving is a detailed account of how a
northern man was treated, including threats of his life, in
the State of North Carolina, and how he and his family were
driven out of the State. Now, however desirable to liberty-
loving Republicans the dissolution of the political
combination known as the Democratic Solid South may be, they
are not yet ready to enter into pledges guaranteeing to any
section or rod of this country the right to murder for
political reasons, or to run off for no crime, any citizen,
be he black or white, or northern or southern born. So long
as American citizens of whatever color, or wherever born,
cannot go or stay, or say his say, or vote and have his vote
fairly counted, in any and every State of our common country,
the Republican party will not voluntarily close its mouth or
bar its right of protest or tie its hands to even secure the
mere outward conversion to Republicanism of the entire solid
South.
VETERAN OBSERVER.
C) HISPANICS
Through the 1880s descendants of the original settlers from Spain and
Mexico continued to maintain a prominent place in Los Angeles society. They
held high ranking offices, both elected and appointed. Reginald del Valle
served in the legislature and Ygnacio Sepulveda was a superior court judge.
Hispanics held numerous city offices, although with an influx of Easterners in
the 1880s they were gradually displaced. When the city police commission in
1889 fired nearly half the police force, including all "Spanish-American"
officers, the Times denounced the action as unjust, arguing that dismissal of
the Hispanic officers closed to that group an occupation that they not only
were competent to fill but had in many cases performed with exceptional
bravery.
Families of the rancho owners remained an in-group in social circles and a
few still held great tracts of land. Others, however, had fallen on hard
times. "Prophet" Potts, himself a pioneer from the early 1850s and an
associate of many of the land grant holders, offered a suggestion. At the time
he wrote, California had a short-lived old-age pension plan for the destitute
that was, though modest, far ahead of its time, giving county supervisors
authority to place names on the pension roles. In June, 1885, for example, 131
Los Angeles County residents drew government pensions ranging from $2 to $30 a
month.
Potts' letter was one of the few about Hispanics that appeared in the
Times, which is somewhat surprising considering the size of that population and
the history of the area.
{Times, June 15, 1888, p. 6}
Help the Indigent Pioneers.
Los Angeles, June 8.--[To the Editor of The Times.] I
see every few days some old familiar face of the old Spanish
families on the streets of Los Angeles, destitute and in many
cases begging for alms of the passers-by. The most of these
old people were rich when I came here, 36 years ago, and were
liberal to the poor Americans coming across the plains in
those days, dividing with them anything they had liberally.
Some of them suffered loss from desperadoes by being friendly
to the American Government in the conquest of California by
the Americans. They are now old and poor and destitute of
this world's goods, and do not know how to make a living
under the new state of things. The county of Los Angeles is
rich, and can well afford to provide sustenance for these few
old pioneers during the balance of their short stay in this
world; and I would suggest that the Board of Supervisors
appoint a committee to hunt up all those old people who have
been worthy citizens of this beautiful countryside for so
many years, and that they be placed on the indigent list and
provided with the necessaries of life from the county funds
for the balance of their short stay amongst us.
J. W. POTTS.
D) HYPHENATED-AMERICANS
Chinese, Indians, Blacks and Hispanics were not the only groups singled out
for scorn in the 1880s. While overt hostility toward the Irish had largely
disappeared, the letter from "X" raised the suspicion that, given an
opportunity, the author would have taken the British side. "American," on the
other hand, had had enough of all hyphenates. Clan-na-Gael, cited by
"American," was a revolutionary Irish nationalist movement implicated in a
Chicago murder in 1889. The title Otis placed above "American's" letter does
not refer to Indians!
{Times, Dec. 29, 1886, p. 10}
BLARNEY FOR THE IRISH.
Los Angeles, Dec. 24.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
For several weary weeks the Tribune has been inflicting on
its readers an immense amount of week-kneed, broken-backed,
hysterical rhetoric concerning the wrongs of Ireland, and
much denunciation of "British tyranny and greed." That the
writer of those articles knows nothing of his subject goes
without saying; were the case otherwise he would not be
employed on that cholera morbific sheet. That his agonizings
are altogether perfunctory is equally evident--nothing could
be plainer than that the Great Mind which steers the
metropolitan journal thinks to capture for the use of his
faction Irish votes and Irish influence by his able
editorials.
If that were all, however, one would pass his
maunderings in silent but soulfelt nausea; but when he says
"there is not a true American who will refuse to fight for
our truehearted brothers" (the Irish) he insults Americans
and lies about their sentiments. And I, claiming to be as
true an American as the proprietor of the aforesaid Great
Mind, though acknowledging myself a much humbler one, desire
to enter a vigorous kick against the assertion that Americans
are ready to take up the Irish or any other foreign quarrel.
X.
{Times, June 30, 1889, p. 6}
A Native American Sentiment.
Los Angeles, June 27.--[To the Editor of The Times.] It
may seem like a step backward to raise the old cry, "Put none
but Americans on guard," but will we not have to do so in
self-defense? We have had the Anarchist murders in Chicago,
and now the Clan-na-Gael. We have British-Americans of
Boston trying to dictate the policy of the country, and the
Hessians of San Francisco refusing to turn out in a Fourth of
July parade, unless they are paid $8 per day--not only
refusing, but threatening to boycott a Fourth of July parade.
In your paper of the 24th, I noticed an advertisement
from Pasadena for a cook, "French, English or Swede; no
Americans need apply." Is it not time for us to say, no
foreigners need apply?
AMERICAN.