MISCELLANEOUS I
Not all of the best letters to the Times in the 1880s dealt with major
issues or drew forth responses from other readers. Scattered throughout the
decade were isolated gems that displayed the writer's humor or cleverness or
commented on concerns that were not significant enough to arouse a general
public outcry. One such submission came in the form of a poem about Frank Ey,
an Anaheim resident whose name appeared for a time on the editorial page as the
Times' representative in that area. Those with the same surname rhyme it with
"fry." Since Editor Otis and his wife Eliza had joined the paper's staff a few
days before they published the poem and they were unlikely to have known the
Anaheim agent, and since Eliza frequently contributed poetry to the paper, both
the reply and the original inquiry may have been written by Mrs. Otis.
{Times, Aug. 5, 1882, p. 4}
A Poetical Eytem.
To the Editor of The Times:
You have an agent 'mongst the lime
and lemon groves of Anaheim.
Now humbly ask I, if I may,
Pronounceth he, his surname Ey?
Perchance those spelling would imply
That he pronounceth himself Ey.
Or, haply, it may neither be,
But calleth himself simply Ey.
Whatever's right, ye must perceive,
To ease these doubts will much relieve.
Tecolote.
Los Angeles, Aug. 4, 1882.
- - -
ABLE REPLY TO THE ABOVE.
Now, why should you weary the heavenly muse,
And dam for a moment the channels of news,
To ask without reason, and only in rhymes,
The name of an agent unknown to the Times?
Suppose we should tell you: to find out the key
To the proper pronouncing of such name as Ey,
Go search for the person, and thus to him say,
"Is your name rightly Ey, or better as Ey?"
Or again, should we warn you, in mannerly way,
That the Times has no time to devote to your Ey.
You might hence in all haste to that agent's friends
fly,
And ask as an item the history of Ey.
'Tis discretion's best part in this instance, think we,
To know well our own names and let other names be.
In the 'eighties Santa Monica was the ocean resort for Los Angeles. Rail
passenger traffic to the beach opened in 1875 and until other seaside
communities developed during the boom of the 1880s Santa Monica enjoyed a near
monopoly on shoreline recreation. While the visitors were welcome, at least
one resident was concerned that inconsiderate bathers violated accepted
standards of decency. While no law was apparently passed at that time, forty
years later similar concerns would result in enactment of a Long Beach city
ordinance strictly regulating the size and shape of bathing suits that could be
worn in public.
{Times, Aug. 5, 1882, p. 4}
Concerning Bathers in Scant Garments.
To the Editor of The Times:
Will you permit me in the name of our mothers, wives and
sisters, to protest against the very unbecoming, not to say
indecent garb in which some of our bathers appear day after
day?
We have laws against men and women appearing in our
streets and at our public gatherings in immodest apparel, and
why should not the same laws apply to our public watering
places and theaters?
If the parties who daily make a parade here of their
supposed physical attractions and charms would make so
shameless an exhibition of themselves upon your streets, they
no doubt would be arrested and fined. The moral status of
those who come here and leave their modesty at home is very
fairly illustrated by the anecdote of the little girl who
closed her evening prayer with, "Good bye, Lord; I'm going to
Boston in the morning and won't be back for three weeks."
And so some people think that because they are going to a
fashionable watering place they will have no need of modesty.
Again, there is now and then one who takes especial
pains to "show off". We witnessed an exhibition of this kind
yesterday. A being in the form of a man dressed himself in a
suit seemingly two or three sizes too small for his bulky
body, and then stepped out of the bathroom right into the
midst of a score of ladies and children, and stood there at
least ten minutes, looking around him every few minutes to
see how much the fair sex were admiring him. Could he but
have heard the expressions of universal disgust from their
lips, and could he have interpreted the almost irresistible
upward movement of the right foot of some of them, he perhaps
would have postponed his bath. But no, I'm mistaken. Such
characters are strangers to modesty and even glory in their
shame.
These comments may seem severe. Well, that is what I
intend them to be, for it is no use to waste time in
moralizing with such people.
Congress would confer a very great blessing on society,
the home and family, if it would make an appropriation of
$3,000,000 to purchase one of the South Sea Islands for
bathing purposes, solely for this class, and furnish them
free transportation there and back annually. There they
might enjoy, in their seclusion, each others' society and
enchanting charms without having blushes to mantle their
cheeks because of the gaze of the impolite bystanders. Poor,
persecuted souls! How much they suffer from a cold,
heartless, unsympathising, falsely-educated public! Nothing
in dress nor conduct should be found at our public places of
resort that would not be proper in the family circle and home
society. No doubt some will accuse the writer of "mock
modesty." Well, so be it. Even so-called "mock modesty" is
certainly to be preferred to the absence of all modesty.
While the conduct of such people is open to the severest
criticism, and most deservedly so, we challange all of them
to produce a single argument in justification of their semi-
nude condition.
M. V. W.
Santa Monica, Cal., Aug. 3, 1882.
Harris Newmark described the fire alarm system that Los Angeles utilized
upon his arrival in 1853.
Instead of fire-bells announcing to the people that a
conflagration was in progress, the discharging of pistols in
rapid succession gave the alarm and was the signal for a
general fusillade throughout the neighboring streets.
Indeed, this method of sounding a fire-alarm was used as late
as the eighties.
By 1882 "H" thought the time had come to change that system, but it was 1886
before the old method gave way to a modern one.
{Times, Oct. 14, 1882, p. 4}
CAN'T IT BE STOPPED?
The Regulation Alarm--Something Better Needed.
To the Editor:
Is it not possible to stop the indiscriminate sounding
of a fire alarm similar to that of last night? It does seem
as though there ought to be a fire alarm system in a city of
the size of Los Angeles; but we must not expect too much all
at once. Last evening the foundry of the Messrs. O'Donnell &
Sutliff, on Aliso street, was delayed in taking off a heat,
and at about seven o'clock the light reflected very brightly
from the furnace cupola. Some individual standing in plain
sight of the furnace, after it had been flaming up for full
fifteen minutes, commenced giving the Los Angeles regulation
alarm, by firing a revolver. That was enough; every revolver
within hearing distance was immediately brought out and a
fusilade commenced, and in the usual time the whole fire
department was called out and went tearing down the street to
squelch the great conflagration. In vain a gentleman ran up
to one of the hose companies and yelled to the leaders that
it was only a cupola blast; as well attempt to dam Niagara
with straws--they were bound to quell that conflagration.
This little episode will cost the city $25 for calling out
the fire department. Can't something be done to prevent this
kind of a lunatic from unnecessarily causing such excitement
and the attendant expense?
H.
While alcohol drew a large number of letters from readers advocating
temperance or prohibition, only a handful of critics bothered to condemn
tobacco. G. A. Millard raised the issue of patches, a century early, as a
method to stop smoking although the patches he cited differed considerably from
the ones that would become popular later. As noted by "R. T.," educators, too,
denounced tobacco, although its continued use would became a prime source of
revenue for the public schools through the cigarette tax. "C. H. S." pioneered
the attack on what would become known as "second hand smoke."
{Times, Aug. 7, 1883, p. 3}
Can We Not Save the Boys?
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: This seems to me to be
an important question and there seems to be but little
thought given the subject, at least in regard to devising a
remedy for this growing evil. There is need of a measure to
protect our boys. The great evil of the use of tobacco,
especially cigarette smoking, is asuming enormous
proportions, particularly on this coast. It is dragging our
rising generation down, creating a race poisoned by the use
of this vile stuff. Our army of cigarette smokers is largely
made up of young boys. And when we stop and think of the
tender age at which they begin, it is fearful to think of.
Little boys seven and eight years of age, just at the time
they are most susceptible of forming habits and most
susceptible to the evil effects of the tobacco. The younger
one is at the time of beginning the longer he has to follow
it, if he lives, and the longer one follows the habit the
more completely is he under its power, and the more
completely is his nervous system affected by it. Now,
considering the age of the majority of beginners, and that
they are not as likely to form the habit after reaching
manhood, this gives us a point to begin on. Where is the
father, although using tobacco himself, who wishes his son to
form the same habit? I think he would be hard to find.
Fathers have the right to say, "Sir, you shall not
furnish my son with this poison, I forbid it." And they can
successfully forbid it. If they will unite they have the
power to make it unlawful for anyone to furnish the boys with
tobacco.
This vice is closely allied to strong drink, and while
the temperance question is being agitated why not make a move
in this direction for the benefit of our sons and brothers?
But before leaving this question let us look at another
connected with it.
The announcement is made that there is a hundred cases
on this coast of leprous patches on mouth and lips, believed
to have been started by smoking cigarettes made by Chinese.
This is one of the best mediums for scattering this
loathsome disease. Can we do nothing to check it?
The first reason given is enough cause for us to
prohibit the furnishing tobacco to minors, but this last
reason is one that should attract the attention of every one.
All who are interested in the young, the coming men, our
little boys, should wield their influence to stop this curse.
Shall this fair land be allowed to become a leprous
hotbed? It will be if we allow it to go on at the present
rate.
Our boys are thoughtless and do not realize their
danger. After they are older they will be able to form
better opinions, will not be as likely to fall into the habit
of cigarette smoking. Let us protect them in their youth and
they will bless us in our old age.
Is there any one besides myself interested in this
subject?
G. A. MILLARD, Pomona, Cal.
{Times, April 14, 1886, p. 2}
The Teachers' Resolutions Against the Use of Tobacco.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I was greatly pleased
to read in the Times a resolution adopted by the teachers at
their recent institute, which reads as follows:
Resolved, That the teachers should use all means at
their command to prevent the use of profanity, tobacco, and
alcoholic beverages.
It is hoped that the teachers will do something more
against these vices than merely pass a resolution. There is,
perhaps, no other vice so prevalent among the boys of our
public schools as that of cigarette smoking, and no other so
disastrous in its effects on the youthful mind and body.
I have no doubt that every observant teacher can point
out boys in the schools whose moral and physical natures have
been poisoned and whose mental faculties have been benumbed
by long-continued use of tobacco in the form of cigars and
cigarettes. From the very beginning of her crusade against
this evil the conscientious teacher will have to combat the
influence of example over precept. The father smokes and the
son will follow his example.
How discouraging to such a teacher, after she has
labored to impress upon her pupils the evil effects of
tobacco, to be told by some forward boy, "Why, our County
Superintendent smokes cigars; Principal A chews tobacco;
Principal B drinks whisky"; and as vice is more alluring than
virtue, and example is more potent than precept, the urchin
continues to imitate the vicious example of these educational
worthies. I believe that the teachers should have gone a
step further in their resolution, and in view of the terrible
and widespread ruin that tobacco using is working, among the
boys of our land, they should have resolved that every
teacher, superintendent, principal or what not who promenades
our streets with a cigar or pipe in his mouth, poisoning our
boys by his example, should have his certificate revoked for
immoral conduct.
A few applications of such a disinfectant would purify
the pedagogical atmosphere of tobacco smoke at least. I hope
to live to see the day when the control and management of our
schools shall pass into the hands of women. Then, and not
till then, can we hope to see a vigorous crusade against the
trinity of vices named in the resolution.
R. T.
{Times, Sept. 8, 1888, p. 2}
Personal vs Property Rights.
Los Angeles, Sept. 5.--[To the Editor of The Times.] In
view of the generally-acknowledged fact that the fire at the
Masonic Temple Monday morning was the result of the
carelessness of some smoker, is it not about time for the
adoption by the Legislature of a law prohibiting a man from
smoking anywhere except in his own house? Hundreds of other
mysterious fires have been traced to a similar origin. Have
property-owners no rights that the smoker is bound to
observe? If not, then some such rights ought to be
established, to say nothing about the personal right that a
man should have of going about the streets or into public
halls or buildings without being compelled to breathe the
smoke from other mouths, which, times without number, is very
disagreeable. The tobacco habit is the most selfish one in
existence today, and is not only destroying valuable property
by the natural carelessness of its users, but is poisoning
the free air of heaven, compelling men and women to inhale
the unhealthy fumes whether they will or no, and entailing
weakness and disease upon the rising generation. In view of
these undisputed facts would it not be a good idea for the
daily press to attack the filthy habit, and urge legislation
to restrict as above suggested.
C. H. S.
In a 1941 Times article dealing with the sixtieth anniversary of the
paper's founding, Glendale resident John C. Sherer was listed as one of the
handful of Times subscribers still living who had been readers of the paper at
its birth. Not only had Sherer read the Times in the 'eighties but he had also
been a Times reporter in 1887. Furthermore, he was a significant contributor
of letters to the editor during that early decade. In the summer of 1885 he
offered this delightful response to an Otis editorial that had suggested the
use of occupational titles that clearly indicated the gender of an individual:
Doctor or Dr. meant a male physician; Doctrix or Dx. stood for a "lady
physician." These were designations Sherer was unwilling to use.
{Times, July 11, 1885, p. 3}
Concerning Doctrix Mary Smith.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: In reply to your
editorial article in Thursday's issue, regarding the
"Shortcomings of the English Language," in respect to titles,
permit me to express an opinion in which I hope you will
eventually agree. With its many defects in the shape of
incongruities which we hope some time to get rid of,
{illegible} English is a very good language, which can scarcely
be improved by the addition of new words, but should, when
changed at all, be made more simple and stronger by lopping
off such superfluities as have gradually crept into it. This
certainly will not be done by borrowing any of the cumbrous
and ridiculous tautological forms which are the peculiar
feature of English law. In the fond hope that English will
be the universal language of the future (as we have good
reasons for believing it will) we should be very careful to
add to it no unnecessary words or phrases, but to simplify it
as much as possible, so that its use may be the more readily
acquired by the foreigner. When a woman has been appointed
by the court the executor of an estate does the law describe
her any more fully or explicitly by alluding to her as the
"Executrix Mrs. Mary Elizabeth Smith," than if it should
refer to her as "the Executor Mrs. Mary Elizabeth Smith?" I
think not. Neither would you convey to the public any
additional information in alluding to the lady as "Doctrix
Mary Smith," more than by referring to her as "Dr. Mary
Smith." As long as women are given certain recognized
"Christian" feminine names, and men have bestowed upon them
masculine cognomens, there is no necessity for making
feminine and masculine distinctions in their titles. The
highest authorities and the usages of the best society have
decreed, quite wisely, that a woman is a poet if she writes
poetry, and not a poetess; that she is a painter if she
follows that particular branch of art, and not a paintress,
and any attempt to make such titles, or names of professions,
vary so as to designate the gender is liable to be rejected
by English-speaking people as over-nice and unnecessary.
J. C. SHERER.
[Here is a deep, diabolical and insidious effort to
overthrow, in its very incipiency, the able reform which the
Times was about to institute in the manipulation of the
mother tongue as applied to pill peddlers of the off gender.
We are so completely set back, broke up, and done for by the
check administered with such cold-blooded previousness by our
esteemed correspondent, that we have no heart to go on with
the great work of reform begun yesterday with hopes so high,
and ambition so agile. We venture, however, to fire one
pertinent conundrum at the daring head of our iconoclastic
correspondent. What are you going to do when it is not
desirable to write the Christian name of the fair medica, or
when initials only are used? How will you designate sex
when, for instance, the name is written "Dr. M. Smith,"
instead of "Dr. Mary Smith?" Or, take another case: How
distinguish sex in a list of physicians comprising both
sexes, when the initials are not used? It can't be done!
Go to! We intend to stand by our philological child,
the new-born Doctrix, and, if need be, see it die on the
threshold of "Doctrix Mary Smith."]
In early 1886 a touring theatrical company sought to increase its
attendance by offering to Los Angeles school children a monetary prize for the
solution to a word puzzle, to be awarded during the final matinee performance
at the Grand Opera House. The winner would be the student who composed "the
largest number of English words out of the letters spelling FANTASMA," which
happened to be the name of the performance. Answers were to be delivered to
George McLain and Martin Lehman, operators of the Opera House. The contest had
been badly thought out and the judges were forced to set up rules after the
entries had been turned in. George A. Dobinson, a Shakespearean scholar and
schoolmaster, chaired the committee of judges who determined that the ten
dollar prize should be divided equally between a boy and girl who had each
submitted solutions with 27 words and who just happened to attend private
schools. Mary Graham and Wyndham Brain, public school students, challenged the
judges' decision in letters that were especially well written for such young
students and that, in the case of Graham, reflected the anti-immigrant feeling
that became more pronounced toward the end of the 19th century.
{Times, Mar. 27, 1886, p. 2}
The Word Contest.
LETTER FROM A LITTLE GIRL.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: You are kind to all.
Will you favor a little girl, and publish this? I exerted
myself to find all the words possible in the one word
"Fantasma," and I sent to the committee the result of my
labors. I had all the words in the list published--and which
got the prize--and three more, which I think are legitimate,
as follows:
Snat, the snuff of a candle; sanat, an Indian calico,
and asta, a rock or cliff.
I do not care for the money value of the prize, but I do
care for the reputation of the public schools, of which I am
a member and pupil. I do not like to be beaten by a girl who
is but six months from Europe, and who cannot speak English.
The committee did not see my words, or I would have got the
prize.
A LITTLE GIRL. (Mary Graham.)
[In reference to the foregoing communication which was
referred to the committee, that body through Mr. Dobinson,
reply that all the solutions of the "Fantasma" puzzle were
handed to them by McLain & Lehman, sealed up as received. No
solutions came direct to the committee. The committee saw no
paper from Mary Graham, and even if, as she says, her
solution contained all the words in the list as published,
she would not have won the prize, as there was a printer's
error in the newspaper list, the word "naft" being printed
"Maft," and Mary's other three words were disallowed in all
the lists in which they occurred.
No rules had been issued for the contest, and the
committee had, in making their award, to frame such rules as
would admit the smallest girls on some kind of equality with
the rest of the children. Yes, it is a fact that limiting
the contest to the main body of Webster's dictionary, only
twenty-seven words won the prize, and those twenty-seven
words were found in but two lists of the large number sent
in. If, says Mr. Dobinson, the reputation of the public
schools depends upon the result of a contest of this kind,
the pupils must wake up and do better next time.]
{Times, April 1, 1886, p. 2}
Letter from a Little Boy.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I see you have been
kind enough to print in your paper a letter from a little
school girl about the "Fantasma" prize, and I am encouraged
to think you will allow me, too, to say that I think the
prize was not given according to merit. I was also one who
made a good searching for the greatest number of words to be
made out of the letters, and I found thirty-eight, which I
delivered at the Grand Opera House as directed. Now, as the
prize has been divided between two giving only twenty-seven
words each, was it not unfair? And I would like to know why
twenty seven words were considered to be more deserving than
thirty-eight. Your love of fair play, I think, will make you
find a place in your paper for my letter, for which I will
give you many thanks; and, apologizing for troubling you, I
am yours, respectfully,
WYNDHAM B. BRAIN,
A 12 year-old school boy at Chavez Street School.
Los Angeles, March 28.
Perceived injustices took on all forms, from a relatively minor squabble
over a word contest to the more serious charge of extortion for access to a
public road. Mary Graham thought she had a better right to the prize than a
girl only six months from Europe and unable to speak English. "M. J.," on the
other hand, believed that new citizens unable to read English ought to be
protected from the "hawks and vultures" who preyed upon them.
{Times, Aug. 7, 1886, p. 2}
A Hard Case.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I want to state a
case--a recent fact--and ask a few questions, in the interest
of truth and justice: In this county, seven years ago, a man
(a citizen, though he cannot read the English language)
bought a few acres of land for a home, near an irrigating
ditch, but not on the highway. The seller contracted with
him for the right of way to the public road, and the buyer
enjoyed and used that way for over six years. He understood
that it was deeded with his home; but, as he did not think
his American neighbor would be guilty of either wrong or
negligence, he did not carry his deed to anyone to have it
read to him, for a special lookout against harm.
Lately the seller has died; the widow put the property
in the hands of a lawyer to settle and sell, and since the
sale, this buyer--the owner of his own vines and orange
trees, and nice little home, the creation of his own
industry--finds himself shut in by the new neighbor--right of
way to a public road utterly denied; and he, with his wife
and little girls, are compelled to be torn from the home they
love, to give up to this rich extortionist, who has bought up
all around him, at such nominal price as said person chooses
to offer, or pay an enormous price, clear beyond his means
for the "right of way" that he supposed secured by his
deed--that he had bought once honorably, and used for years!
And a lawyer tells him he has no redress!
Question: Are laws designed for the protection of those
who need protection, or are they framed in the interest of
hawks and vultures? Are there not men who can devise "ways
and means" to send somebody to the Legislature who will bring
forward measures to secure simple, natural rights in such
cases as the above? We have many citizens--and more are
coming--who do not read our language, even when they speak
it, and must they be exposed to such wrongs? Must we set
ourselves before the world as a people who, under color of
law, "devour" whomsoever may accidentally fall within reach
of our talons? I am only a neighbor to the person being
devoured in this case, but my soul is stirred by the wretched
laws that cover such wrongs, and compel the wife and little
girls to lose their home. Oh, Solon, let thy shadow fall
upon us!
M. J.
Complaints about postal service were not frequently aired in the letters
column although residents were disturbed when the post office was moved to a
location several blocks south of what was then the center of town. That
complacency changed when the boom of 1887 brought to the city such a large
number of new arrivals that the ability of the system to meet customers'
demands was badly strained.
{Times, Jan. 22, 1887, p. 3}
A FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE.
Los Angeles, Jan. 21.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
The condition of the postoffice in the city of Los Angeles is
an outrage upon the citizens of all parts of the country, and
a disgrace to the powers that be in Washington, who persist
in allowing such a state of things to continue! Can language
make it stronger? If so, supply and I will gladly use it.
All day long, and every day, three long strings of people
stand before the windows of the general delivery waiting to
hear from friends, and often on important business matters.
Each person must wait from twenty minutes to an hour before
receiving his letters and papers, and then perhaps after
waiting so long and getting within two or three places of the
window have it closed in his face, and he must come back
again to try the whole thing over. There is no sense in it;
no reason for it; these waiting people are citizens of the
United States, they pay taxes enough, God knows, to have a
sufficient number of officials to serve them decently. They
come from all parts of the country and neither Postmaster-
General Vilas nor President Grover Cleveland will receive any
credit for the parsimony exhibited here.
Postmaster Green and his assistants do all in their
power, but even they cannot compass impossibilities. People
come here, not knowing where they may be able to domicile
themselves, and when they do succeed in obtaining an abiding
place it is weeks before the officials can possibly fix and
follow the thousands of changes being made all the time.
If our respected President could only be shipped out
here and be compelled to stand on his rheumatic legs at one
of those windows for one single time, we would have the two
or three additional clerks needed quicker than one could say
"Jack Robinson." And the best prayer that pious and impious
people can offer for Mr. Vilas is that he may come to his
ordinary horse sense, or "go dead" very, very quickly; so
that in the former case he will give the citizens their
rights, or in the latter case that some better man than he is
will have some respect for his fellow-men.
INDIGNANT AND UNHAPPY CITIZEN.
There were other complaints. The newly enacted Interstate Commerce Act
brought a cry of protest from one writer while another criticized the treatment
of state and county taxpayers, for which the Times blamed the lack of proper
management in the tax collector's office.
{Times, April 14, 1887, p. 6}
Ruined by the Interstate Commerce Law.
Los Angeles, April 11.--[To the Editor of The Times.] I
have a grievance which I wish to ventilate in The Times. I
am a horny-handed son of toil, earning my bread by the sweat
of my face. I came to this land of flowers, sunshine and
climate some months ago, and my enthusiasm and delight over
the situation has been continually on the increase, and I
"whooped it up" so energetically that some of my friends
seriously contemplated hooping me up, lest there might be an
explosion.
But I have met with a serious setback. My hopes are
dashed, and I fear I shall have to return to the land of
cyclones, blizzards, snow, ice, 40 degrees below zero and
things! All on account of the Interstate Commerce Law. I
was in San Pedro Saturday. I entered a saloon to imbibe a
glass of beer. To my utter amazement I was requested to
pocket the nickel which I rather ostentatiously slapped upon
the counter. A dime was demanded. Crestfallen, I demanded
the reason of this exorbitant charge. The gentlemanly usher
in charge of the spigot informed me that the extra swindle
for the refreshing fluid was necessitated by the rapacity of
those giant monopolies, the trunk-line railroads, incited
thereto by the onerous provisions of the long and short haul
clauses of the Interstate Commerce Law. "Beer had riz!"
Sadly I wended my way from his inhospitable door, and hied me
to a cigar store, to invest in a five-cent cigar to soothe my
agitated nerves. Again I was destined to receive a shock.
There were no longer any "stinkers!" "Everything is 10
cents," said the polite vender of the weed, and he repeated
almost word for word the explanation of the beer-jerker
aforesaid: "Cigars had riz," because of the provisions of
the iniquitous law of Congress--the I. C. L.
To this complexion has it come at last! A prohibitory
tariff is levied upon the poor man's beer and cigar. The
ruinous effect of "Chinese cheap labor" is thrown in the
shade, and the very necessities of life dashed from the poor
man's lips!
If this fiendish law--to wit, the Interstate Commerce
Law--has not carried the price of a third-class ticket to New
York or Philadelphia to heights utterly beyond my finances, I
shall return to the East, where they manufacture beer and
cigars, and thus be able to indulge in these staple articles
of modern civilization. That is to say, if the Angelenos who
dispense them do not "catch on" to this San Pedro infection.
Is there any way in which we can quarantine, San Francisco
fashion, against this destroyer of the poor man's privileges
and depleter of his purse? Isn't it possible to vaccinate as
a preventive against its spread in this community? Yours for
a reply,
A TENDERFOOT.
{Times, Jan. 4, 1889, p. 6}
An Infamous Outrage.
Los Angeles, Jan. 2.--[To the Editor of The Times.] Day
before yesterday being the last opportunity for paying the
State and county taxes without the addition of the 5 per
cent. penalty, the writer, in company with hundreds of other
unfortunates of all ages, sexes, colors and previous
conditions of servitude, danced, or rather stood, attendance
at the court of the great mogul who condescends, with the aid
of his eunuchs and satraps, to receive our hard-earned
shekels and give us a receipt for the same when it pleases
them to do so. Having received a paper which entitled him to
approach the august presence of the custodian of book 7, he
tremblingly did so, and for four weary and patient hours
sought in vain for recognition and the privilege of paying
over the amount of the penalty inflicted upon him for never
infringing the laws, or seeking office, and minding his own
business generally. But let us drop the third and speak in
the first person singular.
At 12 o'clock most of the crowd in front of me, who
appeared to be small taxpayers, had secured the coveted
receipts, and as I secured a position at the rail, directly
in front of the big volume and its custodian, I fondly
imagined I could soon have the pleasure of having my
"surplus" reduced, and a receipt in my pocket for the same.
Vain delusion! About the noon hour most of the deputies
appeared to have urgent calls elsewhere; probably to the
banquet halls, and a siesta afterward, for there was a great
thinning out of the force during about two hours, and when
one occasionally flitted about the volume in front of me, and
I ventured to wave my little tag and respectfully ask for a
receipt, was either met by a cold, insolent, silent stare, or
not the slightest notice whatever was taken of the appeal,
with one or two somewhat gentlemanly exceptions, who deigned
to explain that they could not possibly attend to me then;
were themselves "awful tired," etc., which was doubtless
true. Ladies and occasionally some apparently favored male
friend or acquaintance of the deputies obtained receipts
beside and behind me, although I had been waiting more than
twice as long, and at last, utterly tired out and exhausted,
about 8 o'clock p. m., with no earthly show of recognition, I
had to give up my position and retire. While indulging in
some indignant remarks regarding my treatment while getting
out of the crowd, a young man unknown to me tapped me lightly
on the arm to attract my attention and informed me in a low
tone that if I would accompany him he would show me the place
where upon the payment of $2 my application would be received
and receipt made out, but this I indignantly refused to do.
It is the first time in my experience of 40 years' taxpaying
in Los Angeles and elsewhere that an attempt was ever made to
"hold me up." Let the public draw their own inferences.
In the meantime I hope that other taxpayers who have
been treated in like manner will let the public hear from
them. The Tax Collector has given bonds, and taken an
obligation to faithfully perform the duties of his office,
and the main duty is to receive taxes when tendered and give
receipts for the same. If he fails or neglects, through any
cause whatever, to do his duty, my belief is that he and his
bondsmen are liable for damages and costs, and the 5-per
cent. penalty that we may have to pay, and I propose for one
to see what we can do about it. I also trust that every
voter and taxpayer who has been treated in this manner will
make out a list of these tithe-gatherers for future use and
reference whenever they have any political aspirations,
regardless of party.
A MAD TAXPAYER.
Many Angelenos correctly foretold the future, as noted in earlier chapters.
"Old Settler" saw the city reaching out to distant mountains for its water
supply. "Caminos Buenos" pictured a grand boulevard stretching from downtown
to the sea. Frederick M. Shaw {later in this volume} envisioned the day when
man would fly. But the view of others was badly flawed. Responding to an
editorial that welcomed experiments in the expanded use of electric motors and
foreshadowed the passing of the horse, Horatio N. Rust could not conceive of a
love affair between men and steam locomotives.
{Times, Feb. 6, 1887, p. 6}
The Horse and the Electric Motor.
South Pasadena, Feb. 4.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
"Will electric motors oust the horse" is asked in yesterday's
issue.
I well remember when the Boston and Albany Railroad was
built (as my father contracted to do the ironwork for the
bridge at Sprinfield, Mass., the first railroad bridge which
spanned the Connecticut River). There was great anxiety
among the farmers, as the impression was general that the
locomotive would displace the horse and a source of revenue
would be lost to the farmers.
Many locomotives have been built and still we must use
the horse more than ever. The same will be true if the
electric motor is successful. Man's love for the noble
animal will never be lavished upon an iron horse. This
brings to mind the report of the projectors of the Boston and
Albany Railroad, said report having been made about 1830.
The expenses of building and running the road were based
upon horse-power, and in closing the report the committee
said: "It is possible that the time may come when this road
may be operated by locomotives, as we have heard of some very
successful experiments in England."
That committee lived to laugh on this report and see the
locomotive make that road a great success, making a greater
demand for horses than the farmer ever dreamed of.
H. N. RUST.
In Dec., 1881, shortly after the Times began publication, Editor Cole ran
the amusing letter about the dog nuisance, printed in the introduction to this
volume, that was written in the style of Mark Twain. Near the end of 1889
another Twain-like contribution, this one even carrying a variation of Twain's
real surname, told the story of a stranger's Thanksgiving dinner in Los
Angeles.
{Times, Nov. 30, 1889, p. 5}
"It's Home-made, You Know."
TENDERFOOT'S TALE OF WOE--
THEY HORNSWOGGLED HIS TURKEY.
Los Angeles, Nov. 29.--Temple Street.--[To the Editor of
The Times.] I passed through a sad experience yesterday,
which I wish to publish in order to warn other unwary
strangers of the dangers that lurk in the most harmless
appearing placards. Thanksgiving Day dawned as beautiful as
a May morning, and I, being a stranger, sallied from my
boardinghouse to "view the landscape o'er." Suddenly I
beheld what thrilled my heart with joy. There loomed up
before me a telegraph pole and tacked thereon was a small
placard announcing that for the small sum of 50 cents a
certain church would furnish a "Bountiful and Oldfashioned
Thanksgiving Dinner." Visions of roast turkey and pumpkin
pies came up before my mind's eye, and at the time mentioned
on the placard I presented myself before the doors of the
place where the dinner was to be served. A gentleman
standing in the door demanded 50 cents, which I gave him; and
then handed me over to a bevy of ladies who wore red badges
with the word "Reception" emblazoned there, on in white
letters. They seized upon me and bore me off to a long,
lonely table. No other diners were in sight. As soon as I
was seated a swarm of ladies from the back of the room came
down in a body, and many and unsophisticated were the
inquiries as to whether I liked turkey, and "which part"
would I take. After a great deal of fuss, I succeeded in
obtaining a liberal supply of the above-mentioned fowl, and
attempted to taste it, but was prevented by having a plate of
bread thrust under my nose, with the words: "It's home-made,
you know." I accepted the bread, and again attempted to
convey the coveted morsel of turkey to my lips. A hand
interposed between my fork and my lips with a plate of rolls.
"Now I think the gentleman would prefer some of these home-
made rolls to that bread." I declined the rolls, and again
thrust my fork into the meat, but waitress No. 3 rushed up
with a plate of sauce. "Now do try some of these
cranberries. It's all home-cooking, you know. I accepted
the sauce, and again essayed to lift my fork to my lips, but
"There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip," as I found
to my sorrow, for just then a very large lady bore down upon
us, and as the little crowd around my chair separated, she
cried: "Now I'm sure the gentleman is ready for pie," and
she commenced naming the various kinds at hand, ever and anon
putting in: "The're all home-made, you know." Just then
another unfortunate lured to his doom probably by the same
seductive placard that attracted me, was seated by the
"Reception" Committee, and the attention of my tormentors was
turned for a moment. I hastily gulped that bit of turkey,
and seizing my hat, fairly took to my heels. One of the
waitresses followed me to the door, and called out: "Do wait
and have some pie; it is home-made, you know." Thus I
escaped. Now, Saints, deliver us from church Thanksgiving
dinners, where waitresses abound and every thing is "home-
made, you know." Respectfully,
S. C. CLEMONS
Formerly of Middlebury, Vt.
P. S.--I sign my name and former place of abode, "not as
necessary to publication, but as a guarantee of good faith."
However, you may publish both.