LAW AND ORDER
Despite its many defenders, the justice system in Los Angeles has been a
constant source of controversy throughout its history. Chief Ed Davis' off-
hand remark that drug dealers ought to be hanged at the airport, albeit more
rhetoric than a genuine proposal, was late 20th century nostalgia for a return
to the days when a city official could not only suggest such a course of action
for horse thieves and murderers but actually carry it out {at a local corral
rather than an airport}. By the 1880s that vigilante treatment of suspected
outlaws had toned down considerably from the violence of the previous decades,
particularly in the sheriff's office, but questionable conduct by various
chiefs and the Los Angeles Police Department remained a community concern.
A) LAW ENFORCEMENT
The early-day counterpart of a police chief was the marshal, an office
created in 1850 upon the city's incorporation. Horace Bell, without naming the
individual, claimed that Marshal A. S. Beard got the post in 1853 largely
because he was the only one willing to act as hangman at the lynching of
Cipriano Sandoval, a man Bell deemed innocent. As noted in the chapter on
education, Beard was soon removed from office for corruption.
A major reorganization of law enforcement within the city occurred in 1877
when the office of marshal was discontinued and Jacob F. Gerkins became the
first officer to hold the new title of police chief. The sheriff's department,
which also dated from 1850, remained unchanged. Over the years several chiefs
and marshals - James Burns, George Gard and William C. Getman - also held the
post of sheriff, although not simultaneously. Several policemen and deputy
sheriffs moved from one department to the other.
By the 1880s two county sheriffs had died in the line of duty, killed by
outlaws, but the only marshal who died a violent death while in office was
slain by one of his own men. In October, 1870, Marshal William Warren died
when shot by Deputy Marshal Joe Dye, after the two had engaged in a bitter
argument, near the corner of Spring and Temple, over a reward. Dye won an
acquittal but the disposition of the reward is lost in the fog of history.
In his examination of the LAPD in the 20th century Joe Domanick writes:
From its inception as a full-fledged police
department in 1877, the LAPD had been underpaid and
demoralized. Patrolmen, who owed their patronage and jobs to
city council members, had been expected to remove weeds from
vacant lots, pick up dead animals from the street, and
inspect sewers in addition to the traditional tasks of law
enforcement.
Domanick's point about officers owing their jobs to members of the council
is evidenced in part by the action of Mayor John Bryson, who held office for a
few months in 1889. In that brief interval, however, he appointed all six of
his sons to the 80-man police department.
Low pay may account for the repeated charges that the department winked at
gambling law violations and that officers received payoffs from those involved.
Typical of the charges was this letter complaining about Chief James W. Davis
in late 1886. Despite his numerous denials and the support of some citizens,
Davis was eventually dismissed from his post.
{Times, Nov. 18, 1886, p. 6}
GAMBLING SHOULD BE STOPPED.
Los Angeles, Nov. 16.--[To the Editor of The Times.] I
see by today's paper that the charges against the Chief of
Police have been dismissed. The evidence plainly showed that
gambling games have been going on in this city for several
months, and the Chief's only excuse for not having stopped
them appears to be that "they are well guarded and hard to
get at." Even though he could not have arrested the
gamblers, I can see no excuse for his not having stopped
their games. I live in the country, and am in town only once
or twice a week, but have known of the Turf Club game for at
least four months. I have known of three other faro games
and a "stud" poker game for some time, and I have never even
seen them play nor been in their rooms. Now, if the Chief
has not known of the games, he is incompetent to fill the
duties of his office. On the other hand, if he has known of
them and has not stopped them, as appears to be the case, he
should certainly have his badge of office removed. I am sure
that I speak the mind of thousands of others, and hope that
the gambling will be stopped at least.
Respectfully,
S.
During the 40 years from its inception in 1850 until 1890 only 15 men
headed the sheriff's department. Contrast the stability of that office with
the turmoil that frequently surrounded the leadership of the LAPD. During that
same time the office of marshal or chief changed hands 34 times. Domanick
cited the removal of five chiefs in a seven year period early in the 20th
century as symptomatic of corrupt ties to gambling, prostitution and other
vices that "all but destroyed the integrity" of the LAPD. But that integrity
had already been seriously undermined in the 1880s when, between 1885 and the
end of 1889, the department's protection of the same evils that Domanick cited
took the city through twelve chiefs and acting chiefs, five of whom were fired
by the city council. One of them, Thomas J. Cuddy, served a six month sentence
for jury tampering. When Chief Edward M. McCarthy came under attack early in
1885, shortly after he assumed office, letters to the Times supported the
chief, as did Otis. McCarthy is probably the chief who sparked an argument
between newly-arrived Times staff member Charles Lummis and editor Otis, who
refused to withdraw his support from "Mac" despite strong objections from
Lummis.
{Times, Mar. 15, 1885, p. 6}
The Chief of Police Fight.
[The following communication from a prominent Democrat
of this city, received some time ago, still hits a present
nail very squarely on the head.--Ed. Times.]
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: A great deal of
discussion is indulged in about the action of the Chief of
Police. The keenest abuse of the Chief falls flat on the
minds of the law-abiding people of the city, who believe in
the Chief and who are prepared to protect him while in the
fearless discharge of his official duties from the base and
cowardly attacks of men without character or principle. The
tattling politician is the meanest character about town, and
to such are we indebted for the efforts made to drag down our
efficient officer and faithful guardian of the common weal.
Such baseness receives its rebuke when the people through the
press applaud and endorse the Chief's action. Those who
laugh at morality and countenance vice are not good citizens.
Not much better are those in moral fiber who enter the lists
in defense of aliens to all that is virtuous and good. The
father who would apologize to a notorious prostitute because
an officer in the faithful discharge of duty arrests her
without a warrant, merits the condemnation of the virtuous
citizens and stamps himself a vagrant who scorns morality,
presenting a sordid, mean and base public character. We are
to be congratulated. Justice had defenders.
"Thou must do no wrong to the vicious, O Chief. Thou
must not arrest them while in the commission of crime," say
these indignant defenders of injured innocence. Then, O
Chief, the law expounders and law breakers will pronounce
thee perfect. The indignation of the just lawyer is sublime.
That he may not lose one dream of sleep is our prayer. Let
him hide his name, his age, whether he be boy or man, a real
estate peddler or catchpenny pleader, "justice claims
him"--and so does a thief and a prostitute. Such men are
parasites living on the wages of immorality and tempters of
greater crimes to the end that the filthy earnings of the
prostitute and the thieving propensities of her paramour may
go to swell his bank account. Such men are soulless and
desecrate the grace of the mother who bore them. Wise men
learned in the law pronounce the Chief's action illegal.
Common sense laughs at the pleading of the lawyer and
pronounces him a fraud, but accepts the lesson in gymnastics
that strengthens the muscles of the clown. We say it without
fear of contradiction that there is an organized effort being
made by small fry politicians, who live on the public
plunder, to injure a just and capable officer. To its shame
be it said, a portion of the press is in the conspiracy
lending its power to persecute, at the beck of political
wood-lice, a public spirited officer and a true and faithful
Chief of Police. Various rumors fill the air. "The Chief
must resign"--and countless are the wood-lice. Let them
crawl. The ring-worm wants food.
DEMOCRAT.
{Times, Apr. 7, 1885, p. 2}
Proceed Justly, Decently and in Order.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: This thing of
harassing and persecuting the Chief of Police has been going
on now for the past two months, much to the dissatisfaction
of the respectable people of this community. McCarthy is
being persecuted worse than any other man who ever held any
municipal office in this city. Why is he being persecuted
the way he is? Simply because he is a man who will do his
duty without fear or favor, and because he started out to
cleanse and purify this city of the vice the people have so
long been battling against. There is a certain class here
who don't want the vice removed, for if it is removed they
will have to remove with it, because they gain their
livelihood from it.
I have known McCarthy personally for a great many years,
and I have never before known him to be accused of a
dishonest, disreputable or an ungentlemanly act. With this
persecution going on as it is at present, it stops the
machinery of the city, and consequently the Chief of Police
can do nothing. Stop the farce of trying a man on charges
made by Chinamen, who care no more for an oath than a "yellow
dog."
If the Chief of Police has done anything wrong, let
charges be prefered by some "reliable citizen," certified to
the Council by the Mayor, and a committee appointed to
investigate them. The committee to do this investigating,
and not the hoodlum element who were in waiting to gain
addmittance to the investigating committee room yesterday.
TAX PAYER.
{Times, April 24, 1885, p. 2}
The Accusations Against the Chief of Police.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: My attention was
called this morning to a card published in the Herald, which
accuses the Chief of Police once more of incompetency, and
therefore not at all capable of performing the duties of his
office. Why, Mr. McCarthy must be a very bad man, a horrid
man, a man of the dark ages. So say prostitutes and their
pimps, so say gamblers and vags, and so say sorehead
politicians who have been disappointed in their expectations.
How did Mr. McCarthy ever succeed in living for a quarter of
a century or more in this glorious republic of ours, an
honored and respected citizen? I know he has raised quite a
large and respectable family, who are a credit to any parent.
What a mystery that such an ignorant, incapable individual as
he is represented to be, could make life so successful. Now,
Mr. Editor, let us see what has this wicked man been guilty
of since he assumed the duties of Chief of Police to deserve
the disapprobation of a certain portion of this community.
They say he has done what no other Chief of Police would ever
have attempted to do in this city. They accuse him of
entering the peaceful abode of a Mrs. Burlingame, on Los
Angeles street, placing that noted lady under arrest for
keeping a disorderly and bawdy house, without the authority
of a warrant, also for keeping a police officer constantly on
watch around similar dens in the same locality to prevent
assault, and perhaps murder of our fellow citizens, until he
has succeeded with the greatest perseverance in closing up
the hellish dens that have been so long a disgrace to any
civilized community. Now that he has commenced a similar
warfare on the "Dames" of Buena Vista street, their partisans
are wild for revenge and swear that they will have the
Chief's wind cut or die in the attempt. The gambling element
of our city are by no means friendly to the Chief, and why?
Because he has made one of the most successful raids on them
that has ever been made here or elsewhere. The card in this
morning's Herald reflecting on the Chief for incompetency
because he did not instruct his officers that a robbery was
going to take place on Buena Vista street, at 12 o'clock
midnight the day following, and that instead of his officers
being down in Sonoratown watching the poor unprotected
damsels, they should be there on the spot and capture the
highwaymen, is so absurd that a man of ordinary sense would
not give such a statement a moment's consideration. Let me
say in conclusion that the slanderous and malicious
falsehoods that have been concocted about Mr. McCarthy are
wicked in the extreme and a disgrace to any man who claims to
be an American citizen.
A CITIZEN.
Los Angeles, Cal., April 19th.
[Since the above was written the Chief of Police has
been exonerated by the City Council of all charges against
him. This fact puts a different phase on the affair. It is
reasonable to expect that the officer has now earned the
privilege of being let alone. He is entitled to a fair
chance and a fair trial in his office, which he has never yet
had. This is the sentiment of just and impartial citizens,
who have no axes to grind and no vengeance to wreak upon
their fellows.--Ed. Times.]
Although a city council investigation exonerated McCarthy, as noted in the
editorial postscript above, that same council removed him from office a month
later. In an 1891 retrospective Otis continued to laud McCarthy for his
crackdown on illegal gambling.
Chief James Davis was removed in December, 1886, and the following year
Chief John W. Skinner came under attack. Democrat William Workman, a reform
mayor who foreshadowed the coming of the Progressive movement two decades
later, placed an upgrading of the LAPD high on his agenda of things to
accomplish during his term in 1887-88. The need for reform was clearly stated
in this letter, ostensibly from a Republican who supported Workman's effort.
Skinner was removed a short time later. His successor, Patrick M. Darcy, would
quickly leave office amid the scandal accompanying the Woolsteen case,
discussed in the chapter on women.
{Times, Aug. 2, 1887, p. 6}
Mayor Workman and the Police Force.
Los Angeles, August 1.--[To the Editor of The Times.] I
believe that there is lack of discipline and there is
inharmony, weakness and inefficiency in the police force of
the city. This will not be disputed, and the fact is one of
grave consequence to the people interested. It immediately
and deeply affects the peace, order and well-being of the
community. It is a state of things which it is the province
and the duty of the Mayor and Police Commissioners to take
cognizance of, and vigorously endeavor to correct.
It appears that Mayor Workman recognizes the duty
imposed upon him by his office and by the people who elected
him thereto, and that he is endeavoring to discharge that
duty.
There may be more ways than one of doing the same thing.
The matter of detail is not of first consequence. The
particular manner in which the city's chief magistrate or his
associates of the Police Commission communicate their
instructions and orders to the force under their control is
of less concern to the public than the question of improving
its discipline and increasing its efficiency. This last is a
vital point, and it is a matter that the people have a right
to look to the heads of the force to regulate and effect.
Mayor Workman has spoken formal words of warning, instructive
and injunctive, to the men of the police force. They were
plain words, not uttered hastily or in the heat of passion.
They were necessary words to utter. Whether it were wiser,
more proper, more polite to have uttered them to the men
directly, as he did, or to have communicated them by
indirection, through the mouth of the Chief of Police, is
more a matter of hairsplitting than of substance; it is a
matter with which I do not now care to deal. The practical
question is: Did the Mayor exceed his province--were the
words uttered to the force unjustifiable words under the
circumstances? To both inquiries I am compelled to answer
no. The Mayor is the chief executive officer of the city,
the head of the police commission, principal official and the
guardian of the city's interests. He cannot ignore the vital
subject of the police force and its efficiency, or
inefficiency, for which he is largely responsible.
I do not think that any good officer would or should
make haste to jump at the conclusion that he is insulted when
his superior officer, acting in the line of duty, talks to
him plainly of his duty, even when the talk is of the style
of a "Dutch uncle."
The existing state of things with respect to disorder,
lawlessness and crime in the city, is very serious. Los
Angeles is now a large town, the center of attraction for the
vicious elements from far and near. They have gathered here
in great numbers. They are cunning, bold, desperate. They
evade, cajole, outwit, or defy the police in numerous cases.
Crime is frequent--too frequent for the good of the citizens
and the reputation of the city. A strong, alert, courageous,
well-disciplined police force is required to cope with the
lawless element. The force requires a capable head, who
should be thoroughly supported by his associates of the
Police Commission and by the men under him. As far as
practicable these men should be of his own selection or
approved by him.
Chief of Police Skinner is acknowledged to be a man of
good intentions; but good intentions, it is said, are
sometimes used as paving material in a certain nameless but
sultry region. The vital question is, does the officer
possess the nerve, determination, alertness, detective
quality, and executive ability necessary in the chief of
police of a large town filled with burglars, thieves, thugs,
robbers, and other scoundrels. This is the question for the
Mayor and Council to consider, and to consider gravely,
without fear, favor or affection. It is the people's command
that they so consider it. The people demand a capable
officer in this position. If we have not such a one there
now, the duty of the hour is plain.
I do not agree with Mayor Workman in party politics, but
in the higher and more important matter of the city's true
welfare I desire to support him. If he is seeking the
removal of police officers on the mere ground of politics,
for the purpose of filling the places of Republicans with
Democrats--a thing I am loth to believe--I am against the
act. But if he sincerely seeks, as he has promised to seek,
the improvement of the force and the welfare of the city,
without reference to party politics, I shall stand by him to
the last. I sustain his right to do his part toward
enforcing discipline in the force and improving its
efficiency in every legitimate way. I do not mean to
encourage insubordination nor wink at inefficiency on any
officers part, whether high or low.
As to the immediate commander of the city's corp of
peace officers--the Chief of Police--he should first be given
a strong and efficient body of men, every one a tried and
trusted officer, if possible, and then good work should be
demanded and exacted of commander and men, by their
superiors, the Mayor and Police Commission, who may deal
directly with the force, if so they choose, or by indirection
in the form of orders given through the head thereof.
The great and necessary thing, rising in importance over
all, is discipline and efficiency on the part of the police
force. For the attainment of these ends the people look to
the Mayor and Police Commission, and they care little about
ways and means, so they be lawful and just. The people are
not hair-splitters. They want results.
X.
Muckraker Horace Bell, a frequent critic of the chiefs, took on many causes
in the pages of his Porcupine. Among these was an effort to curtail abuses
caused by local law enforcement agencies. As evident in these letters, Bell's
crusade against police abuse spanned the decade. Chief Henry King, whose
resignation Bell demanded, stepped down but not until a year after Bell's
letter about the city jail appeared in the Times. "Moran" was J. P. Moran,
council president in 1882.
Despite "Upper Tank's" appeal to the editor to investigate conditions at
the county jail in early 1888, apparently no correction took place since the
same complaint was again aired a few months later in an open letter from inmate
C. B. Richardson to the county supervisors and sheriff.
In light of Bell's response to conditions in the city jail it is not
surprising that he intervened after hearing Richardson's plea for release. The
detailed account of jail-house conditions in 1888 and Bell's complaint about
conditions in the city facility in 1882 sound surprisingly similar to citizens'
complaints a century later.
{Times, June 29, 1882, p. 3}
The Police Force.
Communication to the City Council by Major Bell.
Editor Times: The following is a copy of a
communication sent to the Council at its last session. The
reference made to it in your issue of Sunday was so vague and
ambiguous that you would greatly oblige one who desires that
the people may be well informed as to what he says, and then
if the people's servants, the Council, do not investigate, it
will not be the fault of the one who complains:
To the Mayor and Council of Los Angeles City:
Gentlemen: There is a man now lying in the Los Angeles
city jail in a dangerously injured condition, his injuries
having been inflicted at the jail by a policeman of Los
Angeles, who beat the said injured man over the head with a
heavy Colt's revolver. The undersigned would respectfully
remind the Honorable Mayor and the Council of Los Angeles,
that although a person be a prisoner, and a criminal, the law
shields him from insult, injury, wrong and outrage, and
punishes those who injure him as though he were a good man
and free. The undersigned would further remind the honorable
Mayor and the Council of Los Angeles that two persons holding
office in the government of this municipality have been
incarcerated in the California Penitentiary, and that while
so confined the law threw its mantle of protection over and
around them then as it now does while they are exercising
their authority over the people of Los Angeles city. It seems
to the undersigned that the very honorable Mayor and the
Council of Los Angeles and the people are not well informed
as to the above and kindred crimes committed by armed
ruffians cruising under letters of mark and reprisal from the
city of Los Angeles, otherwise such things would not be
tolerated.
Wherefore your petitioner prays that these things be
inquired into, investigated, and if such crimes have been
committed that their perpetrators be punished in a manner
becoming the dignity of a people and city emerging from an
age of barbarism and entering upon an era of Christian
civilization and good government.
And your petitioner will ever pray.
HORACE BELL.
Los Angeles, June 21, 1882.
I find that the above communication was referred to the
Police Commissioners.
In April last charges were preferred against certain of
the police force, which were referred to the Police
Commissioners and were before them investigated and proved to
be true. The charges proved were of sufficient gravity to
have consigned to prison walls their perpetrators. Moran and
King dismissed the charges. His Honor, the Mayor, voted a
dismissal from the force of the ruffians charged. Thereafter
it was proved that the Chief of Police was a party to the
crime charged against his subordinate and in effect sat upon
his own case and voted accordingly, which will be the case in
the matter of my communication as above, as King is a party
to that charge and is included in my category.
Not long ago a member of the Council, to wit, Moore,
declared that when on a committee with Mr. Schieffelin to
investigate Nigger Alley he elicited sufficient evidence to
convict the Chief of Police of receiving a large monthly
bribe from Ah Toy, the Mandarin of Nigger Alley. And the
undersigned has patiently waited developments in that behoof,
and hopes the Councilman who says "he is a friend of the
Chief" will not incur the suspicion of having compromised
about that bribe.
Hoping the Council will thoroughly investigate police
matters, I am, etc.,
HORACE BELL.
June 24.
{Times, Jan. 25, 1888, p. 3}
A Voice from the Jail.
Los Angeles County Jail, Jan. 21.--To the Editor of The
Times.] It is as a last resort that the long-suffering
inmates of the County Jail appeal to you for some little
assistance in relieving our distress. Ourselves, the
blankets, in fact, the whole institution is thoroughly
infested with vermin. A lack of sufficient blankets, the
cold weather and the vermin make it an impossibility for us
to get a night's rest. We do not get anything like enough to
eat, and there exists here a continual state of hunger, not
to say starvation. We cannot get water sufficiently hot to
scald our clothes and rid ourselves of the parasites that
constantly torture us. Of late most of us lived in the hope
that some of the recent arrivals here from San Francisco
would introduce the smallpox germ, and thus breed an
epidemic, which might spur the powers that be to make a
change for the better, but, as yet, our hopes have not been
realized. We are packed together in these small cells like
bees in a hive, and the stench and foul air which is thereby
generated is something frightful to contemplate. In fact,
life here is a burden, under existing circumstances, and we
most earnestly ask you, in the name of common humanity, to
ventilate the matter, and, by so doing, lend a helping hand
to those who are unfortunate enough to be unable to help
themselves. If you have any doubt whatever as to the strict
accuracy of any of the statements made above, by all means
send somebody up here to investigate the condition of things
in the
UPPER TANK.
[The attention of the proper authorities is directed to
the above complaints.--Ed. Times.]
{Times, June 29, 1888, p. 3}
A Night in the County Jail.
To Hon. Thomas Rowan, Chairman of Board of Supervisors,
and James C. Kays, Sheriff--Gentlemen: I respectfully call
your attention to my experience in the jail of this county
for one night. I was arrested by one Deputy Constable A. L.
Smith as a vagrant, and carried to the County Jail. I asked
to be allowed to communicate with friends in order to give
bonds. I was incontinently ordered by the jailer or night
man to go into a hole worse than that of Calcutta. I had to
sit on the iron floor of the corridor between the cells until
daylight. I dared not lie down. The stench from the sink
was strangulating. Toward daylight I walked back to get a
drink of water. There being no cup, I leaned over to drink,
when a burly criminal came out from a cell not locked and
struck me a blow with a board an inch thick with all his
strength. Of course I turned on him, when he raised his
club, and would undoubtedly have beaten me into insensibility
had I not asked him what he struck me for, when, calling me
vile names, he told me to sit down. After waiting patiently
until daylight I did my best ineffectually to get some
communication with the Sheriff's office, friends
outside--anything to get out of this damnable place.
Finally I was called up to what they called a court. A
clear-eyed creature read from a piece of paper, and I was
submitted to the indignity of a search by the vile fellows
and a pair of eyeglasses taken from me. Directly some fellow
was brought in there was a yell to get inside; not
understanding a burly villain, the same with a club seized me
by the back of the neck and hurled me almost into a cell.
I tried amid jeers of these brutes to get some one to
telephone to my friends. A little grinning negro was finally
at the grating, and without consideration would not call some
one who might be in authority, that I might be able to
communicate outside. In all I failed until Maj. Bell
fortunately appeared, and I begged to see him. He kindly, at
my request, went down, and in the course of three or four
hours, after being in jail eight or ten hours, I was
discharged.
When breakfast was brought the prisoners were locked up,
save the burly villain; a cup of coffee the strength of
water, a chunk of tough bread and some half-cooked beans was
the bill of fare--unfit for a canine to eat.
Finally I was allowed to sit for an hour awaiting to
hear from Maj. Bell. This man Smith never called for me to
carry me to court, in direct violation of the law, and God
knows if I might not have died there incarcerated subject to
his sweet will.
Gentlemen, I call your official attention to this
matter. I will see what the civil courts have to say for
Smith, but I, as an American citizen, free-born and entitled
to the protection of the law, enter my protest as to the
arbitrary arrest by an insignificant official--incarceration
among the vile beings that fill the jail--subject to the
deputies' will. If these deputy constables have the right to
arrest without warrant, incarcerate without limitation as to
time, I, for one, propose to resist, with force sufficient to
protect myself, or be shot. I have some more to tell you and
the public about these infernal proceedings. I am ready to
swear to all I have written and it shall come out in court.
Respectfully yours,
C. B. RICHARDSON.
B) PUNISHMENT
Readers of the Times in the 1880s were as frustrated about crime as later
generations. Their concern for law and order, and particularly for the timely
punishment of offenders, contrasted sharply with earlier attitudes that
condoned the infamous Chinatown massacre of 1871 and with the devil-may-care
spirit of the 1850s when the city became, almost proudly, the murder capital of
the nation. This emergence "from an age of barbarism," as Horace Bell put it,
may be accounted for by the arrival throughout the 'eighties of an increasingly
large number of civilized folk from the East and Midwest who brought with them
a belief that criminals were more properly dealt with by the courts than by a
rope thrown over a post at Tomlinson's corral gateway.
Had the city enjoyed an era of impartial and fair justice during the 1880s
the complaints that surfaced in the letters column might not have existed. "An
Observer" wondered who was the greater law violator, the patrolman or his prey.
"J. J. B." raised a vexing question about the priorities of the justice system,
although in this case it involved a county constable rather than a city
policeman.
{Times, July 29, 1887, p. 6}
Should He Have Been Arrested, Too?
Los Angeles, July 26.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
This morning may have been seen the arrest of a man on the
corner of Main and First streets for driving his horse in a
moderate trot across this corner. This is all right. But
what gets me and other spectators is that the policeman
making the arrest jumped into the man's wagon, and, ordering
him to turn about, drove with three times the rapidity across
the same corner, making a lady who was in the way fairly run
to escape the danger. Should a policeman have arrested a
policeman?
AN OBSERVER.
{Times, May 31, 1889, p.7}
A Needless Hardship.
San Gabriel, May 27.--[To the Editor of The Times.] An
especially hard case came under my observation yesterday.
There has lived at San Gabriel for several months past a poor
German with a sick wife and three or four nice, bright little
children. The children are attending the public school,
where they are highly spoken of by their teachers, while the
father, who is far from strong, peddles for a living, having
some how made the raise of an old plug of a horse. Now, he
can speak very little English, and cannot read a word. So
one day last week, having to pass over the new county bridge
at El Monte, not being able to read the notice as to fast
driving, and being totally ignorant of the rule, trotted his
old plug across. He was arrested on the spot, taken before a
justice and fined $10 or 10 days. Not having the money, his
horse was put up at a stable and the unfortunate owner
carried off to jail, where he still lingers, his family being
entirely ignorant of the misfortunes of their breadwinner!
What sort of a piece of business is this? That poor family
is almost in a state of starvation, while the father is thus
languishing in jail merely to satisfy the greed of some rural
Constable or Justice of the Peace. The name of the
unfortunate is Blankstein, and I trust steps will be taken to
liberate him at once and send him home to his poor wife and
children.
J. J. B.
One group of letter writers, represented by "A Bleeding Taxpayer" and to a
lesser degree by "One of Them," looked with some nostalgia upon an earlier
era's method of dealing with criminals. Much of their scorn, along with that
of "J. C. S.," was directed at the failure of jurors to make the justice system
work. Others, such as "Justice," "Don Fernando" and the anonymous author of
"Crime," believed the problem was the fault of a professional class that
remained under attack a century later.
District Attorney Stephen White, who seemingly was unable to sway a jury in
the case cited by "One of Them," possessed one of the brightest legal minds in
the city. Two of the cases cited by "Don Fernando" were particularly lurid
and newsworthy in 1887-88. Hattie Woolsteen {see the chapter on women} was
arrested and tried for the murder of Charles Harlan, a local dentist. John
Henry F. "Fritz" Anschlag committed suicide in November, 1888, one day before
his scheduled execution for the brutal murder of Charles and Ellen Hitchcock on
their Garden Grove fruit farm.
The letter by "J. C. S." is very likely from the pen of J. C. Sherer,
whose letters are found in other chapters as well.
{Times, Oct. 29, 1887, p. 12}
A "Bleeding Taxpayer" Speaks.
Los Angeles, Oct. 23.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
And still the thing goes bravely on of arresting criminals
and trying them before a jury that agrees to disagree, and,
after repeating this two or three times, set the culprit
free.
All this may be very nice for the professional man, but
the average taxpayers begin to feel that they are paying too
dearly for the amount of justice obtained and begin to think,
is it not possible that our jury system is a farce,
especially in these later days, when an oath can be taken
with so much mental reservation? If we must have a jury at
all, then let a majority rule. The writer was in the mines
in an early day, when we had no laws, only such as were
locked up in the breasts of the miners, to be brought out and
executed as occasion required. Our lives and property were
then safe, compared with what they are now. We have too many
laws and too many lawyers. If the army of officials we have
to execute the laws would execute half the lawyers, and then
cut off half their own heads, it would be a long way on the
road to retrenchment.
A BLEEDING TAXPAYER.
{Times, Nov. 7, 1883, p. 3}
Murder Most Foul.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: To-day I was mortified
beyond expression upon the recitation to me of the fact that
a jury of citizens of Los Angeles had virtually turned loose
upon this community the embodiment of angelic purty and
innocence in the person of one Don Amaranto Castillo. This
gentleman was charged by District Attorney White with having
presented a pistol at the breast of an unarmed countryman,
and shot him to death.
Now, sir, there are thousands in this community who
would like to know the names and residences of those same
gentlemen of the jury, and I am
ONE OF THEM.
Los Angeles, Nov. 6, 1883.
{Times, May 6, 1886, p. 2}
A Business Man Seared.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: The "business man," of
whom it is stated in a late issue of the Times that he "is
opposed to juries," is a fair type of the too numerous class
of otherwise good citizens who, in this community and others
in California, are mainly responsible for the
maladministration of justice which has brought upon the name
of our State some disrepute.
The Times has been doing good service by its manly
attitude upon questions of public interest, and here is
another subject upon which it may to great advantage exert
its influence, viz: The citizen's duty to the public. The
principal trouble with the merchant alluded to, is,
evidently, that he prefers his individual profits or personal
ease to the general welfare in which others share with him.
He belongs to the class, probably, who talk most and loudest
about the "degeneration of public men," the "gross
miscarriage of justice in our courts" and the "degrading
influence of politics," yet never lifts his voice nor his
finger in the right direction to avert the evils he complains
of! We know that he shirks his duty in giving some selfish
petty excuse for not getting on a jury, and so aiding the
fair administration of justice, and we logically infer that
he takes no part in anything so "degrading" as politics,
unless he has a direct personal interest at stake. He leaves
the administration of justice to court-house idlers, and
political affairs to the bummers of the slums, sitting aloft
on his pedestal of self-complacency, hurling anathemas at the
poor mismanagers of the world below! Not to intrude at
wearisome length upon your space, allow me to sum up the
substance of this idea, thus: No community will ever reap the
benefits accruing from the equitable administration of
justice, until its business men, and all other good citizens,
are willing to sacrifice when called upon, some individual
comfort or property for the public good.
J. C. S.
Los Angeles, April 30.
{Times, Feb. 5, 1887, p. 6}
Crime.
Los Angeles, Feb. 3.--[To the Editor of The Times.] Is
it of any use to talk of crime? What is crime? Can anything
new be said about it? It's a common affair; so common some
people turn away from it as no concern of theirs. It would
not be so if it was an affair belonging only to one class of
people. Could one class only be pointed out as criminals how
quickly the mark would be recognized and they would be
shunned. Each individual consciousness portending to
wrongdoing restrains many a one from even speaking against
crime and criminals. This is the fatality of human nature,
remedied only by the triumph over it of moral ideas and good
instruction. When Satan gets the upper hand in making
character, he is sure to make a criminal.
It is supposable the law will restrain people from
crime, but the lawyer will say the law is to punish after
crime is committed. Often in practice the law seems rather
to delay punishment and to release the criminal. The
constant escape of criminals from punishment acts as a self-
breeder and increases the number of criminals. Lawyers have
these matters more in charge than other people. Since the
fact of the oft escape of criminals is asserted and commented
upon why is it not proper to charge it to the lawyers
directly--have the lawyers, or more exactly "criminal
lawyers," pointed out as a class joined to criminals, a class
seeking to use the law and its technicalities and delays to
hinder justice and thus cause the escape of the criminal from
punishment? It is the opinion of some people that this class
of lawyers would soon sink into the oblivion to which they
belong if the community would only mark them as they deserve
to be marked. Now suppose all the burglaries committed were
against lawyers and their houses and their wives and children
frightened into insanity by midnight raids of burglars and if
the wife makes an outcry death is threatened at the point of
a revolver, or drawn knife, their property taken by the
robbers. Suppose burglars and thieves singled out lawyers
for their depredations and let all others alone, then how
soon would these lawyers cry out for protection, yes, and
demand punishment for the thieving acts, and no doubt would
demand what ought to have been done years ago to make a law
to treat a well-known burglar as a murderer. Why not? The
burglar determines to kill if he cannot steal without
killing; he threatens to take life if resistance is made; he
is in fact a murderer. Why should not the law treat him as a
murderer? If any lawyer objects to this then let the whole
class of thieves and burglars be turned on the lawyers and
their families and houses.
The people sometimes take the execution of law into
their own hands--they assert that a class of lawyers obtain
the release of criminals and thus perpetuate crime. The
people are inquiring what next shall be done to preserve
honest citizens from depredations? When one counts up the
number of burglaries, when he reads what the burglar does to
terrify people and multiply insanity it becomes the most
frightful story that can be told; some of these terrible acts
would be enumerated here, but it is enough they can be read
in every daily paper, and it should make the people ask the
more constantly, is there no remedy? Will not a remedy be
found either in heaven or on earth?
Civilization is said to be God's machinery; but man is
running the machine. It is no more than the part of every
good citizen to try and find how to run the machine in the
best manner in this section of civilization; so some of us
want to put in our word about it. If we are soon to be a
city of a 100,000 people, the sooner the better we find out
how to prevent one class from preying on another class of
people. Above all others the burglar does the most terrible
work, for he is both thief and murderer.
{Times, Feb. 10, 1887, p. 6}
A Needed Sermon.
Los Angeles, Feb. 9.--[To the Editor of The Times.] An
article entitled "Crime" inquires how can we law-abiding
citizens be protected against the criminal, the burglar and
murderer. Why is such a question asked when every man knows
that we have enacted laws intended to prevent and punish
crime? We have so-called courts of justice, and license a
class of citizens to prosecute and defend persons charged
with crime. These we call lawyers. They belong to that
favored class known as the educated class, and we have a
right to expect them to be good citizens. Now let us examine
the fact. We can all recall circumstances similar to this;
A thief murdered a man in Chicago, and the evidence was
abundant. A policeman started him for the jail, and before
he reached the jail a prominent criminal lawyer was at his
side and volunteering his services as defense. The murderer
was acquitted. The lawyer got the thief's money and
notoriety, and a murderer was turned loose to prey upon the
public and justice was cheated by a lawyer.
Today a criminal lawyer stays the proceedings in the
case of the Chicago Anarchist, creates sympathy for the
foulest of crimes and encourages the worst of criminals to
hope for liberty to go out again and murder honest men in the
discharge of a public duty.
Not many months ago two murderers were tried, convicted
and condemned to hang in Los Angeles. No one doubted their
guilt. Just as they were about to mount the gallows a
lawyer, by some legal process, stayed proceedings, took the
murderers across the street before court and made an effort
to cheat justice and gain what? Possibly money, probably
notoriety. These efforts are so common now that all are
familiar with them, and every criminal in the land knows
perfectly well that, no matter how foul his crime, money or
notoriety will induce lawyers to defend him, and lawyers on
the bench, judges who ought to be above reproach, will sit
and allow these lawyers to badger and confuse an honest
witness, and destroy his testimony if possible. These are
every-day facts. Now I ask which is the worst criminal: the
most dangerous man in society?--the man who, under unusual
circumstances, commits murder, or the lawyer who, by his
life-long practice, says to the murderer, "If you commit
crime, come to me; give me your money and notoriety, and I
will do all I can by every intrigue and device to screen you
from justice. I have saved many a man from just punishment
for crime."
I believe the professional criminal lawyer more
dangerous in a community than a burglar or a murderer. The
murderer is an outlaw, and has little influence. The lawyer
may have social position, and poisons the mind, encouraging
the young and old in crime. There was a time when the State
furnished counsel for those criminals whose crime was so
apparent that no respectable lawyer would care to defend
them. Then justice provided them a fair defense; but today
we have lawyers in abundance ready to defend the worst of
criminals; not merely give them a fair hearing but by
dishonest means turn them out upon the public. What is the
remedy? We well may inquire: What can honest men do to
protect themselves from burglars, murderers and their
pals--the criminal lawyers.
JUSTICE
{Times, Feb. 24, 1888, p. 6}
{Title Illegible}
Alhambra, Feb. 20.--[To the Editor of The Times.] I am
not an adept in so-called judicial law, but I know a deal of
justice, and should think it about time for intelligent,
educated lawyers, presumably respectable citizens, to call a
halt in the defense of beastiality and brutal, atrocious
murder, as in the cases of Anschlag, Woolsteen, Williams, and
many others, past and present. Aside from the torturing,
untimely taking off of the Hitchcocks, the fact of the sacred
body of a virtuous, respectable wife being dragged about with
a rope tied to her legs by that low-lived brute, is enough to
make any manly man's blood boil in his veins who cherishes
the blessed memory of a mother or wife in his heart. The
Woolsteen--the present age is rotten with such
specimens--demanded her "rights" of a married man; the wife
was only entitled to the wrongs, doubtless; and Anschlag
didn't wish to see his mangled victims suffer, so proceeded
to mangle them a little more. They should both be hung high
as Haman for these expressions alone, which quite equal
Guiteau's, who said he was "sorry Garfield suffered so."
Why don't some of the giant cement-minded women, who
have been drooling over the Woolsteen drab, take a nosegay
and mince pie to Anschlag? I would consider it less
disgraceful to do an honest day's work shoveling mud on the
public streets with a ball and chain attached to my leg, than
to engage in the defense of such cases for a few paltry
dollars. Why are honest men taxed to defend self-admitted
crime?
DON FERNANDO.
"Don Fernando's" quick condemnation of both Woolsteen and Anschlag was
echoed by the Times in its coverage of those cases. Until the last few days of
Hattie Woolsteen's trial the Times condemned her as "wicked Woolsteen,"
refusing to consider that she might be innocent of any crime. The paper's news
columns were rife with editorial comment on her guilt.
Contrast that with the position the Times took a year later when, in two
separate cases, men were accused of criminally assaulting young children. At
San Bernardino a woman claimed justifiable homicide when she killed the man she
charged with assaulting her child, whom the Times described as "almost an
infant." In Los Angeles "a respectable citizen" was arrested on a woman's
charge that he had "ravished her five year old daughter."
In the first case, claimed the Times, there was no truth whatever to her
allegation and the woman was subsequently arrested for murder. In the Los
Angeles case the charge of rape was dismissed, although the man had been
temporarily jailed. His wife, however, was driven insane by the incident.
In an editorial the Times offered this advice:
There is something radically wrong in a system which
permits the heinous disgrace of so awful a charge as this to
besmirch for life the characters of innocent men, on the mere
assertion of a mistaken or spiteful woman. At this rate, no
man's reputation is for a moment safe. What matters a
denial, which is read by few and believed by less, after the
damning charge has once been blazoned to the world? While
innocence should at all times be protected, we must be
careful that, in our anxiety to do our duty in this
direction, we do not perpetrate cruel injustice, which cannot
be repaired on this side of the grave.
Had the Times learned a lesson from its treatment of Woolsteen or was Otis'
seemingly courageous stand for civil liberties in reality a gender-based
display of empathy for a fellow male? M. Whaling may have thought it was the
former. In one of the most poorly written contributions, from a grammatical
standpoint, to appear in the letters column in the 1880s, Whaling seemingly
singled out the editorial writer for praise, expressing concerns worthy of an
ACLU member, or wrote with a tongue so deeply in his cheek that his true
meaning was obscured. The only M. Whaling listed in city directories at that
time was Michael Whaling, an attorney and, after the Feb., 1889, election - a
school board member! He was the only Democrat elected to a seat on the nine
member board. The meaning of the title Otis placed on his letter, referring to
"Sir Rupert," is now lost.
{Times, May 13, 1889, p. 5}
Praise from Sir Rupert.
Los Angeles, May 12.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Regardless of personal fear or favor, I deem it my duty to
say to you, & through you to the public, that your Editorial
on yesterdays Times entitled "Cruel Injustice" is one of the
best editorial I ever read on a subject of such vital
importance to society & only a noble heart & manly man could
have embodied expressed so many ripe thought & essential
principles in so small a space. Indeed it strikes the key
note to one of the greatest & noblest elements of law, human
or divine viz: that charity is to be extended to the accused
& no man prejudged or criminated until after a fair trial and
impartial investigation. I admire the spirit & object of a
writer who shows to the public that people should only be
deemed criminals when so declared as the law indicates and
directs. And he who inculcates & teaches a respect &
reference for the law & for its strict enforcement if not a
philosopher, is at least a philanthropist & is worthy the
admiration & respect of his fellow-citizens especially in
this age when newspapers charge, try and pronounce sentense
upon those accused of a crime before there is any opportunity
afforded of a judicial proceedings. Yours, &c.,
M. WHALING.
It was not only juries and lawyers who drew the wrath of citizens for their
failure to properly punish criminals in Los Angeles. Judges and prosecutors
both received their share of criticism, as the trial of William Kimball et al
for the 1883 murder of Ben Avise revealed. In initial reports the Times
described Avise, who claimed title to property on the Rose Tract near Mission
San Gabriel, as a "sober, industrious citizen" who "was generally and favorably
known." Testimony during the trial, however, suggested another side to his
character.
Kimball shot Avise on the afternoon of Saturday, July 7. That evening a
coroner's jury, without hearing from any of those who would be charged with the
crime, ruled that death was by gunshot. Five men, including Kimball, were then
arrested and brought before Los Angeles Township Justice Robert A. Ling for a
preliminary hearing.
The lawyers involved in the case were among the city's finest: for the
prosecution, District Attorney Stephen White and Col. G. Wiley Wells, who would
later defend Hattie Woolsteen; for the defense, an O'Melveny: former judge
Harvey K. S. O'Melveny.
News reports in the Times about the incident and the legal proceedings
irritated one reader who submitted a letter over the pseudonym "Justice," only
to have his identity revealed when the editor printed an explanatory footnote
to the letter containing the author's real name. Other readers were outraged
by Justice Ling's decision that the defendants' action was justifiable
homicide. {The Times reported that spectators at the hearing were openly
hostile to his verdict.} When Ling's candidacy for re-election was endorsed by
District Attorney White the following year, William Fleming wondered why. Ling
was defeated.
{Times, July 13, 1883, p. 4}
What Mr. Cummings Thinks.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I see some comments in
your paper of the 12th inst. about the Avise case which are
severe and uncalled for. First, "Mr. Avise was generally and
favorably known." If Mr. Avise was alive he would now be in
the United States Court to answer to a charge of perjury,
preferred against him by the United State Grand Jury. So
much for "favorably known." In the next place, Mr. Avise had
attempted, some few days past, to cut the grain belonging to
the Kimball brothers, commencing to cut on Saturday night
with four reapers, lanterns attached to each reaper,
intending to cut all day on Sunday. Does such conduct make
one "favorably known?" If it was right for Mr. Avise to cut
the grain belonging to the Kimballs, why not cut it in the
day time? One of the attorneys now prosecuting these
defendants said to Mr. Avise and his wife in San Gabriel
Mission, "Madam, I can't call you a lady, but if that man by
you (Avise) will say what you have, I will take the top of
his head off." Did that attorney advise Mr. Avise to build a
house on Smith's land? Smith bought the land, paid for it,
and rented it to the Kimballs. Does the law prohibit a man
from protecting his person and property? Would that attorney
object to any one taking the books from his library? I think
he would, decidedly. And why should not Kimball object to
have his grain taken? There is such a thing as going too far
with anything, and this is one of the cases. The idea of
trying a man for defending his rights! Why, there would be
no peace or safety in the community if any man could take
forcible possession of another's land and crop.
This is not the first time Avise has fought. He died
with scars on him his wife gave him.
JUSTICE.
Mr. Editor--I write you not particularly for
publication, although I don't care what you do with what I
have written. Every word of it is the truth. My public name
is "Justice." I wanted to explain why the Kimballs and Mr.
Smith were there at the time the Avises were moving on
Smith's land.
M. A. CUMMINGS.
[Judging from the name this correspondent bears--the
same name as that borne by one of the prisoners accused of
the murder of Avise--it is, perhaps, not surprising that he
is found in the role of a defender of organized
assassination.--Ed. Times.]
{Times, July 14, 1883, p. 3}
Let Us Have Peace.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: The five armed men who
murdered Ben Avise, at the Mission, last Saturday, have all
testified that Mrs. Avise drew her shotgun and fired the
first shot at Kimball without any provocation. Let me
suggest that these five peaceable characters have the widow
Avise arrested for assault to murder, (I don't see why they
haven't done it before this,) and ask for a preliminary
examination, if it ain't just too indelicate, before Mr.
Justice Ling.
A LITTLE MAN.
{Times, July 18, 1883, p. 4}
Defense of the Manslayer Kimball et als. and of Justice Ling.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: The person who bears
the same name as one of the defendants in the Avise case
denies being a defender of assassination, as you say. Mr.
Avise's death was the consequence of an unlawful act on his
part, just the same as any burglar would meet his death
breaking into your house. The land was not in litigation at
all, as some say, but, no doubt, some parties would have the
public believe it was. In another place, paper of 13th
inst., some person heads a piece "Was It Justifiable
Homicide?" We agree with the writer that the strong arm of
the law is necessary to crush just such acts as Avise was
then being guilty of. The person who wrote that must have
just returned from an old-fashioned Methodist lovefeast, from
the way he crowds in those precious words. I would like to
know if he ever attended a shotgun lovefeast with "peace on
earth and good will to men" for his motto? The truth is, it
is all a misstatement from beginning to end, as you will find
when the trial comes off. I don't think they could possibly
hold a lovefeast on that ground, shotgun or any other gun.
It might be more properly called Bull Run the 2d, as there
has already been one lawsuit about a fight the Avises had on
that land. I will not say anything about Mrs. Avise's
evidence; she is well known, and certainly will be better
known before she gets done testifying in this case. Very few
men can say they have lived 56 years without a lawsuit or
difficulty, and such a man certainly would not be the one to
head a shotgun love-feast.
In the Times of the 14th there is some more of the same
kind, headed "Let us have peace." All in good time, my
little man, don't get in a hurry. Mrs. Avise won't run away
while she has so many noble defenders. You would like to say
they arrested her to injure her evidence. Probably you are
the little man that advised Avise to move on Smith's land.
The remark in regard to the indelicacy of bringing the
case before Justice Ling don't hurt Ling or anyone else.
Ling is sworn to decide by law and evidence, and he did in
that case. Neither Justice Ling or any other justice knows
of any law that will prevent any man from protecting himself
and property.
JUSTICE.
{Times, Nov. 1, 1884, p. 2}
A Square, Upright, Honest Man.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: Let me say, if you
please, that if your report of the speech made by Stephen M.
White, on Thursday night, in Los Angeles city, is correct,
and that he said Robert A. Ling (the present incumbent and
candidate for Township Justice) "is a square, upright, honest
man," then White's opinion has undergone a radical and
unwholesome change since the examination of Wm. Y. Kimball,
Bill Smith, G. F. Smith, Ed. Cummins and Geo. Parker on the
10th of July, last year, before this man Ling. Does he
forget the zeal and eloquence with which he (White) presented
the facts of the cold-blooded murder of Benjamin Avise to the
mind of this "honest" man? Does he remember the appeals for
justice made by the widow and fatherless children, by their
presence and story, and how this "honest, square and upright"
Justice (God forgive me!) set those five alleged murderers
free in this community, and the voice of our citizens was
loud enough to make this Justice's presence mighty scarce for
sometime? Does Mr. White know the men were re-arrested and
one convicted and State-prisoned? Well, White may not
remember this one case of the many that have occurred, but
our good citizens will think twice before they vote once for
such an administrator of the law as Robert A. Ling; at least
I will.
WILLIAM FLEMING.
Los Angeles, Oct. 31, 1884.
Disturbed that the justice system did not deter criminals, readers offered
suggestions for the appropriate punishment of specific crimes. In February,
1886, several writers responded to "A Mother's" recommendation for a then-
drastic sentence for seduction. While her proposal won some endorsements, it
was ignored by the legislature at that time. In a modified form, however, it
was adopted in the 1990s.
{Times, Feb. 14, 1886, p. 4}
Seduction and its Antidote.
To the Editor of the Times:--Sir: To seduce young,
innocent and handsome girls, is a mania with a large number
of male bipeds, especially the rich. The moneyed rake
becomes possessed of the notion that he has a prescriptive
right to debauch any young girl he fancies. All his
energies, mental and physical, are bent in the development of
his baser passions. Moral bankruptcy is the inevitable
result. Moral bankrupts are numerous. How may we save our
pure and innocent girls from such monsters. There is but one
remedy, namely, castration. Barring the lean, lank,
cadaverous individuals, who are possessed of abnormal
appetites and passions, a vast majority of our citizens
would, undoubtedly, favor such a law. We should get up a
purse of $5,000 and present it to the member of our State
Legislature who will be mainly instrumental in having a law
placed on our statute books making castration the penalty for
the seduction of any girl under 20 years of age. Put me down
for $5 towards such fund. Respectfully, yours,
A MOTHER.
{Times, Feb. 16, 1886, p. 2}
Heroic Treatment.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: In your Sunday issue
occurs a communication from "Mother," suggesting castration
as the penalty, punishment and cure for libertinism,
seduction, etc. Such a course of treatment would doubtless
prove highly efficacious, and the writer heartily approves of
the passage of such a law, applying to the crime of rape as
well, which crime was formerly punishable by the laws of
England in the way suggested.
Amend the Edmunds anti-polygamy law to the same effect,
and, after a few examples made of "Bishops" and "Elders," I
venture the assertion there would soon be a "new revelation"
to the ignorant and misguided Mormons. And when we procure
the passage of such a law it will be by all means retroactive
in its provisions and applications. Now, if "Mother" will
suggest some remedy as effectual for the protection of our
innocent young sons and--and--and ministers from the Delilah
wiles of designing female libertines, she may put me down for
$10 in aid of her proposed fund.
ANXIOUS FATHER.
{Times, Feb. 18, 1886, p. 2}
"Raised."
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: The suggestions of an
"Anxious Mother" ditto "Father" as regards a remedy
(castration) for the crime of seduction, etc., would no doubt
prove effectual if it were possible to obtain such laws. In
times past such suggestions have not received enthusiastic
approval. History even records that Pope (his official title
has slipped my mind) suggested that all who wished to enter
the priesthood undergo castration, and no doubt theoretically
met with no opposition, but practically, well, they are not
castrated by a large majority. Why not? To not be behind in
subscription to the "Mother" and "Anxious Father" fund, to
obtain laws to conform with each others suggestions, put me
down for $20 to be willing to have both sexes protected.
C. U. SCHUHS.
{Times, Feb. 18, 1886, p. 2}
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I agree with "A
Mother" that castration would be the remedy to put a stop to
the crime of seduction. That would save our young and
innocent girls from such vile, lecherous and loathsome
wretches as the Beast Baldwin, has, from his own mouth on the
witness stand, shown himself to be. Let the punishment of
castration include the pimps--opium fiends--men who are
guilty of living off the money made by their mistresses,
girls of easy virtue. Do this, and where we now have one
hundred prostitutes we would have that many more happy wives,
rearing children that would make useful citizens. We could
then solve the great problem, how to check the social evil.
You can count on me for $25 towards a fund to be presented to
the bold and fearless legislator who will have the courage to
present a bill covering the above suggestions.
A FATHER.
{Times, Feb. 26, 1886, p. 2}
The Lash for Liars.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I noticed in your
issue of the 7th an article from "A Mother;" also one from
"Anxious Father." Now, while I would indorse both, I would
suggest a remedy against the vile and abominable practice of
concocting scandal and peddling it out to any and every one
they meet--an evil that exists and is practiced by some that
hold themselves far above the common people, but whose souls
are as low and black as they would make those of their
victims. Now, I would unearth the old-time whipping-post and
cat-o'-nine-tails. Then if anyone dare defame the name of a
fellow-being--let them be male or female--cause them to
receive not less than twenty stripes on the bare back, and
see if our moral atmosphere can't be made clearer. Now, I
will subscribe $15 for such an institution.
A FRIEND TO HUMANITY.
Other writers explored the question of punishment at a more intellectual
level than permitted in the few paragraphs usually allotted by Editor Otis to
his correspondents. This call for a "Two Strikes" law by an unidentified
author may very well have been penned by the writer of the unsigned attack on
lawyers that appeared the following day and of the letter signed "Justice,"
published five days later, both reprinted above.
{Times, Feb. 4, 1887, p. 4}
Crimes.
Los Angeles, Feb. 1.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Crime will bring its retribution. This retribution on the
community may come in a way unanticipated. Cincinnati found
the fruit of crime in riot, bloodshed and the burning of the
courthouse. Chicago's criminal class brought down on that
city the Anarchist bomb and death to citizens whose lives
were worth a thousand times more than the lives of the
criminals. Retribution falls on a community in countless
ways when criminals go loose to execute their destructive
schemes.
It is becoming common for one class of laborers to use
unlawful means to prevent another class of laborers from
working; this is the new form that crime takes on. Liberty is
no longer worth having if one class may exercise a power that
shall reduce another class to starvation. The next we shall
hear is that merchants are ordered to shut up their stores.
The spirit of such actions is to reduce all to one common
level of barbarism. Unpunished crimes are poisonous plants
set around about a house; they vitiate the blood of all the
family; the care of anxious parents is all in vain so long as
the noxious perfume is daily breathed by the children--the
body politic becomes contaminated with the disease. The very
sight of immoralities conveys the distemper, for crime is to
the mind what poison is to the body.
Hesitation in the punishment of crime only lures the
individual on to commit it. Those who have scruples about
the punishment of crime may well stand aghast, lest they find
the poisonous seeds in their own hearts ready to spring up at
the opportune moment. This is a disease that does not cure
itself--it requires a doctor from the outside to give the
medicine.
If Los Angeles is always to be a goodly city, every
citizen must take a hand in driving out the criminals, or the
criminals will one day become a torment. It would be a long
way toward the desired condition hoped for if every youth
could have special care for the first dozen years of life.
The completion of the plans of the Newsboy and Bootblacks'
Home would be a wonderful gain. Then every boy loose on the
street with a villainous cigarette steaming at his nostrils,
poisoning all his blood, should be put into the home, and
there get good instruction. In such homes the kindly counsel
and instruction is sure to be indelibly impressed and
remembered. It is a help for the replacing of the last moral
element; it has been the saving of many a boy from the life
of a criminal. Sooner or later the people will be forced to
the conclusion there only safety is in the confinement of
criminals after their second conviction for crime--a
confinement that shall prevent the criminal from perpetuating
himself. It is a fact they very seldom reform after the
second conviction.
The real seriousness of this whole criminal business
makes it hard to understand why some newspaper writers treat
crime loosely, often representing the acts in a laughable
way, or explaining them as jokes or the fine work of skillful
men, instead of the wicked works of wicked men. In the case
of a man shooting another man how wretchedly it seems to
represent this as a joke! Then again, giving to the most
disgusting acts the air of flippancy, as if there was no harm
in the immorality itself; in reality helping to create the
crime. One may justly ask if such a writer is not a guilty
party.
It seems as if people need to have their attention
constantly called to these things, especially the point of
mental weakness of criminals, to save children and youth from
being caught in traps and their bright prospects of a happy
life forever ruined. Now, look, for example, at the
libertinism of expression of Spies, the convicted Chicago
Anarchist, when he found his hopes of marrying Miss Van Zandt
cut off. "It makes no difference," he said, "we will live
together without marriage, as that is not necessary--a mere
unimportant affair." The display of such lustful
propensities may cost him the loss of all respect, even from
so ardent an admirer as Miss Van Zandt, as it has already
cost him the loss of the respect of every honest and pure
person. It should save imprudent young women from plunging
in too great haste over a precipice, just for the notoriety
of marrying a murderer.
C) JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Numerous young men moved west in the 1880s, lured by their fantasy of the
sun-kissed land by the golden sea. Some like Charles Willard, would become
leading figures in their adopted city. Others found only disappointment.
Despite the appearance of a booming economy, many Angelenos at the lower
end of the economic ladder did not participate in the general prosperity. The
city grew, business expanded and men were hired, but too many hands flocked to
Los Angeles for work and, except in certain trades or at limited times, the
unemployed constituted a significant part of the population. Included among
the idle were a growing number of boys who either lived on the street or whose
parents struggled through the hard times. The city suddenly faced the problem
of juvenile delinquency, a sign that it was no longer a frontier community but
had truly joined the ranks of the nation's metropolitan districts. {See the
chapter on charity for related letters.}
Two incidents brought forth comments from readers regarding the inability
of parents to control their incorrigible children. During the four years that
separated these episodes Editor Otis altered his position regarding parental
responsibility. In reporting the 1885 Maloney affair Otis had blamed parents
for the wayward action of their boys:
There ought to be some law to punish parents who raise
boys that are incorrigible criminals at twelve years of age.
In such cases it is not all the boy's fault.
During the Judson matter in 1889 Otis agreed that some boys could present a
problem exceeding their parents' ability to handle. Mrs. Helen A. Watson,
referred to by John Anderson, was at that time director of the children's home
referred to in the chapter on charity. Stable proprietor Lucius O. Judson's
private letter to Chief John M. Glass, whose appointment that year brought Los
Angeles the beginning of a modern, professional police force, was reprinted by
the Times, leading to an exchange between Anderson and Judson.
{Times, Nov. 5, 1885, p. 2}
Oh, that Boy!
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: In your Saturday's
edition I notice, an article about a Mrs. Maloney, who has
turned her twelve-year-old son over to the police, saying
that she can do nothing with him, and also, in the same
article, the censure of the writer, saying there should be a
law to reach such parents, raising criminals of that age.
Now, Mr. Editor, I have children, too, and very much
sympathize with Mrs. Maloney; for if she did not intend to
have the boy brought up right, she would let him go on and
not ask for help to stop his pranks. The question is, What
can you do with such a boy? I have seen parents chain up one
of their boys for weeks at a time to make him stay at home;
but, the next day after his release, was off with the boys
again, on the streets, with their mouths full of tobacco or a
cigarette. Now, again, I say, What can you do? Can you stop
it? They are sent to school when it opens, but after the
first week the teachers do not like to bother with them and
they are expelled. Now where is your compulsory
education--the reform school, and where is that? The parents
get them a situation somewhere, but in a few days they are
discharged. You cannot make them go to school, nor can you
make them work. All parents cannot live on a farm to have
work for their children, hence they are on the street.
But it occurs to me that our authorities should arrest
all boys under 17 years that are seen on the street with a
cigarette in their mouths, and not allow any boys on the
street after dark. What can you expect of a boy that is
permitted to disgrace our streets from the age of six to
fifteen? I assure you, Mr. Editor, the parents do all in
their power to bring up their children, respectable, but it
is the bad company they get into when on the street. It is
now the absorbing question, What are we to do with our boys?
ECHO ANSWERS.
{Times, Oct. 26, 1889, p. 4}
YOUNG INCORRIGIBLES.
L. O. Judson in a Sad Plight with His Boys.
For some time past L. O. Judson has been in a quandary
as to what to do to keep his boys straight. They are very
young and also very bad, and have caused no end of trouble
and anxiety on the part of their parents, who have used every
endeavor to educate the youngsters and to keep them in the
right path. In spite of all the boys went wrong, and have
been engaged in all kinds of mischief. Recently they ran
away from home and went to San Fernando, from which place
they were returned by the authorities. Their father not
being able to keep them at home has applied to the Chief of
Police, and on Thursday night succeeded in having them locked
up. The Chief, having no way at his command to detain them,
turned them over to Mrs. Watson, who took them to their home.
Yesterday the Chief received the following letter in regard
to them:
October 25, 1889.
To the Honorable Chief of Police--Sir: Mrs. Watson
returned my boys this noon to me, and informed me she could
do nothing with them. Now, I appeal to the courts of this
city to make some provision for them, as they are beyond my
control, and it is not in my means to send them to a pay
school. The boys have broken in houses, and taken therefrom
goods and disposed of them. They have taken things from
their own home and disposed of them, and this is the tenth
time they have ran away, and now they will not say but what
they will go again, and I am satisfied that, the first chance
they get, they will go again. and I now say I want the court
to take them and provide some place for them, where they
cannot do further harm. I have them in a room at my house,
and shall expect you to take charge of them, as I have not
the means to provide such a place as they should have. Very
respectfully,
L. O. JUDSON,
No. 717 South Spring street.
P. S. --The boys must be sent to the Reform School, and
at once, before they are gone again.
{Times, Oct. 28, 1888, p.3}
Mrs. Watson and a Tale of Woe.
Los Angeles, Oct. 26.--[To the Editor of The Times.] In
this morning's issue of your paper I noticed a letter,
addressed to the Chief of Police, and signed "O. L. Judson."
This man, Judson, is either very ignorant, or never was
a boy, or is too good for this sphere. His boys,
notwithstanding his tale of woe, are probably no worse than
many other boys. The only difference is that his boys have
parents who are not competent, or who are unwilling to
perform their duty, and, therefore, are not worth talking
about; but it is different with Mrs. Watson. If she really
has said that she cannot control those boys, she admits a
weakness that unfits her for the position which she occupies.
She receives dual pay from the city, and it is her duty to
care for those boys; it is her duty to try, and keep trying,
until she succeeds in awakening a soul in those poor,
unfortunate waifs that are worse off than if they had no
parents. There should be no such word as fail in Mrs.
Watson's dictionary. How could she say that she could do
nothing with a pair of infants? Supposing they do run away,
does not the city pay a special policeman to return them to
the home? Has not Mrs. Watson a place in which to lock them
up for a time? If she has not she should have.
If the children are sent to the Industrial School at San
Francisco, inside of 30 days they will become so highly
educated in vice that they could give points to the people of
Sodom and Gomorrah.
I beg of you, sir, to endeavor to save those poor
children through the medium of your paper.
I know none of the parties, but I do know what I say
regarding the ultimate fate of those babies if they are not
cared for here. Yours respectfully,
JOHN ANDERSON.
{Times, Oct. 29, 1889, p. 5}
"Them Boys."
ABLE REMARKS BY MR. JUDSON TO JOHN ANDERSON MY JOE JOHN.
Los Angeles, Oct. 28.--[To the Editor of The Times.] In
this morning's issue of your paper I notice a letter about L.
O. Judson. This man, John Anderson, seems to know
considerable about cases of this kind. I should imagine from
his letter that he was a boy and a runaway, and had the
experience of an industrial school. He is kind enough to
censure me for trying to do something for my boys for their
good. I know nothing of such a school, and therefore made
inquiry, and was informed that was the only place for them.
I have given them kind treatment, a good home and better than
ordinary clothes. I have tried with their mother to give
them good advice, but all to no purpose. They have left us
ten times, and Lord Anderson says there is a special officer
to look after such cases. I have failed to find such a man,
and as far as competency is concerned, I am quite sure Lord
Anderson had but little common sense, and needs some kind
friend to look after him. I should like to meet Lord
Anderson and give him a few points on attending to his own
business, until such times as he knows what he is talking
about. Hoping to meet Mr. John Anderson, I am, very
respectfully,
L. O. JUDSON.
709 South Spring street, City.
A solution to the problem facing Mrs. Maloney and Judson had gradually
emerged during the 1880s. At the urging of Dr. Walter Lindley strong support
developed for construction of a reform school in Southern California. At the
time the state's only such institution was in San Francisco, the one to which
Judson had urged that his sons be sent.
In 1885 Assemblyman Henry Hazard, who later served as the city's first
mayor under the reform charter adopted near the end of the decade, introduced a
bill for creation of a reformatory in Southern California but it was 1889
before the legislature acted. While much of the debate centered on the nature
of the school, as seen in the letters by Lindley and C. B. Carlisle, the most
heated controversy took place over its location. As in the case of the mental
institution established in San Bernardino County, the Times carefully monitored
actions of the site committee, objecting when members voted to locate the
school at Whittier. Real estate agent Robert D. Wade made the case for that
city, which still retains the institution, now known as the Fred Nelles school.
{Times, Oct. 4, 1882, p. 3}
REFORM SCHOOL.
The Republican Party Favors it by Platform Resolution.
To the Editor:
The platform adopted by the Los Angeles County
Republican Convention, Sept. 25, 1882, contains the following
plank:
Resolved: That the number of criminal children in
California is appalling and that it is the duty of our
representatives to use their utmost endeavor to secure the
establishment of at least one Industrial Farm and Reform
School to be supported by the State, to which vicious
children may be committed.
The above resolution has for the first time prominently
presented this subject to our citizens. Day after day
notices of criminal children being brought before our city,
township and superior courts have appeared in the columns of
the city papers. People have expressed their sorrow to see
mere boys committed to jail, and yet would be indignant if
they were discharged to corrupt the morals of other children.
What shall be done with these juvenile law-breakers?
A reform school and industrial farm would solve this
problem. The easiest way to cure crime is to prevent it.
Send the ten-year-old child who has committed some petty
misdemeanor to a reform school, where he must work, receive a
practical education, and taught good morals, and the
probabilities are he will make an industrious, respectable
citizen. Send a similar boy to jail, and the probabilities
are he will make a chronic criminal.
Take one typical example in real life. A boy twelve
years old commits a petty crime; his over-bearing father
employs an attorney to defend his son, and, on the plea of
youthfulness, gets him discharged. The boy goes on
committing crime, the loving father continues paying money to
protect him until old age and poverty overtake the parent,
and manhood's years and a sentence in the penitentiary are
the assets of the son. Yet the harm inflicted on that family
is the least of the evils--think of the number of boys this
criminal has dragged along with him. This is no fanciful
picture. Almost every reader can point to some similar case.
Suppose there had been a State Reform School to which that
boy could have been committed when he was guilty of his first
misdemeanor and he had been kept at work in that school until
he was eighteen years old--don't you believe his chances of
making a good citizen would have been far greater?
The following brief extract from the report of the
President of the Board of Trustees of the Reform School of
the District of Columbia is worth reading:
"As has often been said, it is cheaper to prevent crime
than to punish it, and if the matter is only considered as a
question of dollars and cents, it is manifestly more
economical to the government and District of Columbia to
feed, clothe and educate these boys than it may be hereafter
to try, convict and subsist them in the jails and
penitentiaries of the country. A large proportion of the
boys who leave the school turn out well, many of whom are now
honorably supporting themselves and assisting their parents,
and promise to become valuable members of society, who,
without the influence and training received at the school,
might have been a burden upon the community on which they
were cast. In my visits to the jail, upon more than one
occasion, my heart has been pained at the sight of many boys
of tender age confined therein as the associates of criminals
of the worst character.
"It is with pleasure that the trustees refer to the
conduct of the boys generally. They have performed their
tasks with cheerfulness, studied their lessons faithfully and
have behaved themselves as well as school boys usually do."
Such schools are not prisons, but are made, under proper
management, pleasant homes in which each inmate takes pride
and interest.
WALTER LINDLEY
Los Angeles, Sept. 30, 1882.
{Times, Jan. 17, 1885, p. 4}
The Proposed State School for Boys.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: Late Sacramento papers
say the bill introduced by Mr. Hazard appropriating $50,000
to establish a State school for boys provides that at least
one hundred acres of land shall be donated to the State by
the citizens of the place where it shall be located. Such a
school should be situated a few miles from the city. The
vicinity of San Fernando, Sepulveda, Pomona, Cucamonga,
Downey City, Etiwanda, Norwalk, Ontario, Wilmington or Santa
Monica would be favorable to its success. The erection of
such public buildings, the current expenditures for the
support of such an institution after it is established would
infuse life and prosperity into any town or village. The
beautiful grounds, drives and buildings would be a never-
ending source of attraction to visitors. Any town could well
afford to spend $20,000 to get this State institution located
in its neighborhood. Yet it is probable that a sightly and
desirable location could be proffered that would not cost the
donor near that amount. Persons desiring to make an offer to
the State, as indicated above, should correspond immediately
with Hon. H. T. Hazard, Sacramento, stating specifically what
they will do to secure the school. Very respectfully,
WALTER LINDLEY,
216 South Fort street.
Los Angeles, Jan. 16, 1885.
{Times, Mar. 16, 1889, p. 5}
Juvenile Delinquency.
Palms (Cal.), March 7.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
While the paragraph in The Times announcing the probable
success of a bill to establish a reform school for juvenile
delinquents in Southern California will be gratifying to
every right-thinking man, it is to be hoped, in the event of
such enactment, that our institution may have the benefit of
the latest intelligence in this direction, and not become, as
too many of these so-called "reform" schools, a sort of
dumping-ground where society, legislating for man as an
abstract, gets rid of the presence of a troublesome element,
at least temporarily.
With facts in regard to the care and reformation of
juvenile delinquents that come from the enlightened and
humane, this institution ought to escape the disgraceful
character and reputation of the average "school," where the
appointment of officials is made to turn upon the success of
political parties, and where fitness is of less concern than
ability to lend a hand in the political primaries or
conventions; a sort of hybrid between the home and the
penitentiary, possessing all of the evils and none of the
benefits of each; a mortifying failure.
We can never arrest juvenile delinquency in this way.
Wiser methods must prevail. Make-shifts only make criminals.
We must improve on the congregate system, and make an effort
to surround the boys and girls with conditions as nearly as
possible like those of a home. It certainly is a wrong thing
to indiscriminately herd these children in order to save
expense, and get them out of the path of society. These
conditions simply foster vice and immoralities of all kinds.
All the elements of the "tough boy," the hoodlum, filter
through the entire mass, and, according to the principles of
a well-known law, finally disease it.
A reform school that is simply an institution capable of
confining and restraining those committed to it, or, in
plainer terms, a jail in which the inmates are to be
reformed, is a disgraceful mistake. It has proven so much of
such mistake that in districts in the East the public has
enforced its modifications, notably, for a change that
results in a number of divisions of the institutions, and the
adoption of the so-called home or family plan.
It is to be hoped that the people of Los Angeles and of
Southern California will profit by the experience of other
localities. These children, these sparrows of humanity, out
in the winter air of indifference, morally and physically,
shelterless and unclad, cast up from the great sea of unwise
or broken homes; results of poverty, intemperance, divorce
and all the unstable habits of our civilization, must be
cared for, as becomes a Christian community. There is
something good in them. Do not increase the bad by unwise
management. Reach after the good.
C. B. CARLISLE.
{Times, April 16, 1889, p. 7}
The Reform School Location.
Los Angeles, April 14.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
In regard to the editorial in yesterday's Times, which
questions the selection made by the commissioners of a site
for the proposed Reform School, I beg leave to suggest that
there are other considerations of much importance besides the
mere dollars and cents value of the various proposed sites.
The object of the institution is to take several hundred of
the worst and most depraved youths of Los Angeles and other
cities, keep them until they reach manhood's years and send
them forth into the world again equipped with a good
educational and moral training, and with a practical
knowledge of some trade which shall enable them to fill an
honorable position in life. To do this, to constantly
control several hundred such characters as these, to give
them the maximum of liberty and the minimum of temptation, to
do this and keep these boys from feeling that they are
hopeless criminals, serving out severely-imposed sentences in
a penal institution, which location presents the proper
surroundings? One bordering upon the limits of a rapidly-
growing city, full of temptations, or one near a quiet
country village? The writer lived for some years near the
town of Plainfield, where the Indiana State Reform School is
located, and in a conversation with Supt. Ainsworth of that
institution, he said that no criticism upon the location of
that school could be made, unless, perhaps, its proximity to
the city of Indianapolis, distant 15 miles. He said that so
soon as a boy made his escape from the school he would make a
bee-line for that city. Plainfield is a Quaker town, and
naturally noted for the quiet, orderly character of its
people; and its selection as the location of the Indiana
Reform School has always been conceded as most wise.
Whittier, as is well known, is also a Quaker colony, and is
inhabited by a similar class of staid, industrious citizens.
Last Friday evening a Los Angeles boy about 14 years of
age was lying upon the sidewalk near the Times building in a
state of intoxication. Suppose that boy is sent to the
Reform School in the hope of sending him away a good citizen
four years hence, would not his chances be for better several
miles from where his evil habits were contracted than within
sight of his old associations?
The people of Whittier, like those of many other
California towns, have been struggling with adversity. They
raised money to build a railroad. They have at great cost
developed an abundant supply of pure water on land heretofore
pronounced utterly dry and worthless. They have built
churches, schoolhouses and comfortable homes; and now by a
united effort they raise sufficient money to purchase a tract
of land and offer it as a donation to the State as a site for
the proposed Reform School. Shall we of Los Angeles, with
our Normal School building, our county courthouse and the
Government postoffice building, shall we in a spirit of
selfishness criticise the commission for giving the choice to
Whittier, because, forsooth, one of the commissioners happens
to be interested in that colony? Furthermore, the climate of
Whittier, owing to its elevation and peculiar location,
possesses some advantages which will compare very favorably
with any location which has been suggested. Besides, I do
not see how the location of the school would benefit Los
Angeles more if located in its suburbs than it will if
located at Whittier. In either event Los Angeles merchants
will furnish all its supplies; Los Angeles brick-kilns and
lumber-yards will supply the building material, and its
railroads will carry every inmate to the institution. And,
finally, Los Angeles, will not have the 400 bad boys in her
midst.
R. D. WADE.