POLITICS
Although California, beginning in 1860, cast its presidential vote for
Republican candidates in six of the next seven elections and usually chose
Republican congressional delegations, Los Angeles remained a Democratic
stronghold until the 1880s. Democratic presidential candidates Franklin Pierce
in 1852 and James Buchanan in 1856, both of whom captured the state's electoral
vote, carried Los Angeles County with slightly over 50 percent of the vote. In
1860 Abraham Lincoln, aided by a fatal division within the Democratic party,
took California's electoral vote although less than one-third of the voters
supported him. In the county the two Democrats, John Breckinridge and Stephen
Douglas, outpolled Lincoln by more than 3-1, with Breckinridge of the Southern
Democratic wing leading all candidates.
Secession further divided Los Angeles Democrats but they continued to
support their party. In the midst of the Civil War Democratic candidate George
McClellan led Lincoln in the county, 744-555. Four years later county voters
preferred Democrat Horatio Seymour over Gen. Ulysses Grant by a 3-2 margin, and
Grant's plurality over Horace Greeley in 1872, the first time a Republican
presidential candidate had carried Los Angeles, resulted from a split in the
Democratic ticket. By 1876 county Democrats were united again and Samuel
Tilden led Rutherford Hayes by over 500 votes.
The political complexion of both county and city changed with the rapid
population growth of the 'eighties. The great influx of adult men from
Northern states in the East and Midwest increased Republican strength and
altered the direction of local politics. Starting with James Garfield's 61
vote plurality in the election of 1880, Republican presidential nominees began
a period of dominance in the county that continued for several elections. That
was reflected in the decision by the Republican party to hold its state
convention in Los Angeles, for the first time, in 1886. In the city,
Democratic candidates continued to be elected mayor with some frequency, but
after the election of 1883 the council had Republican majorities more often
than not.
The city's newspapers reflected this change in the political makeup of Los
Angeles. At the beginning of the decade the two dailies were the evening
Express and the morning Herald. Republican papers were short-lived before 1880
and either folded or changed their politics. The Express began with a
Republican slant in 1871 but, with a change of editors and proprietors, was
endorsing Democrats by 1880. Long-time Los Angeles newspaperman and historian
William Spalding classified the Express as "independent." The Herald was
consistently Democratic from its founding in 1873.
While other Republican papers appeared briefly during the 1870s, when
Nathan Cole and Thomas Gardiner published the first issue of the Times in 1881
it was the only Republican daily in town. As such, it used a large portion of
its editorial and news columns to promote Republican policies and candidates.
Throughout the decade the paper followed this openly partisan approach so
typical of journalism at that time.
That partisanship was apparent in the letters column as well. The
overwhelming proportion of letters printed by the Times either supported
Republican candidates or attacked the Democratic party and its nominees,
whether local or national. Intertwined with partisan differences of opinion
regarding the tariff, free trade, civil service reform and other issues that
separated the two major parties in the 1880s was a lingering animosity incurred
by the recently concluded Civil War. That was particularly noticeable in
national contests, especially presidential elections. Democrat Grover
Cleveland's campaigns in 1884 and 1888 were a focal point for Republican
Angelenos, many of them Union war veterans who looked upon Cleveland's
Democrats as the party of treason and secession. This letter by "Old Vet,"
written in the closing days of the 1884 campaign, paraphrased the frequently
expressed view that Northern veterans would "vote as they shot" - Republican.
{Times, Oct. 28, 1884, p.2}
A Veteran Gives the True Figures.
To the Alleged Man and Brother, Editor of the Herald of
Democratic Unfairness: Verily, verily, thou must have seen
through the bottom of several glasses darkly on Saturday
nIght last, judging by your estimate of the number in the
Republican line. The Army and Navy League, alone, had just
thirty files of four men each. Please refer to your
lightning calculator and see what you get as a result, and
remember that this was but one of the many organizations in
line, in nearly all of which the Union veterans were numerous
and conspicuous. As to our marching--well, we old boys did
manage to hobble along, notwithstanding the effects of rebel
lead and inhuman treatment in Southern prison pens that the
most of us carry; but with all that, we will be up and coming
on November 4th--single, by twos, by fours and in
platoons--and cast our ballots as we did just twenty years
ago, ninety-five per cent. for the cause of the Union and
supremacy of our glorious flag, and in this contest that
cause is represented by Blaine and Logan, for whom we shall
vote--"and don't you forget it."
Till then, "good bye, my lover, good bye."
OLD VET.
A) "THE BLOODY SHIRT" AND "THE SOLID SOUTH"
The Republican party won the White House in every election from 1860 to
1884. One reason for their continued success after the Civil War was the
"bloody shirt," an effective Republican tactic that based campaigns on the
horror of the war and blamed Democrats, Northern and Southern, for the misery
inflicted upon the nation. "You got your crutches from - a Democrat," snarled
Republican orator Robert Ingersoll in campaign after campaign until the mid-
1890s. The former soldiers to whom he spoke, like "Old Vet," dutifully put
aside any objections they as farmers or laborers had with the Republican
platform and cast their votes for the Grand Old {Republican} Party.
By the late 1870s Democrats had regained control of the ex-Confederate
state governments and by their consistent support of Democratic presidential
candidates had earned for that region the nickname of "the Solid South."
Cleveland's election in 1884 was seen by Los Angeles Republicans, who voted
along with the majority of the state's voters for James G. Blaine, as a hollow
victory, based on repressive Southern politics that took advantage of a flawed
electoral college system and rewarded Democrats for disfranchising potential
black voters. Along with their criticism of the electoral system, Republicans
carped about Cleveland's lack of moral character, as represented by his
avoidance of military service in the Civil War and his fathering of an
illegitimate child. The denunciation of the Democratic candidate as a draft
dodger and a womanizer would sound familiar to voters a century later, while
the biting sarcasm in "Confederate's" letter would compare favorably with that
of modern commentators.
{Times, Oct. 26, 1884, p. 5}
Plain But Momentous Questions.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: The issues involved in
this political campaign are so patent that elaborate argument
would seem to be unnecessary. If, for the next ten days, the
Republican papers of the country would keep something like
the following questions at the head of their editorial
columns they would so clearly and so forcefully present the
great facts and principles to which public attention should
be solicited that the commonest understanding, readily
apprehending their true character, and perceiving the
relative attitude in regard to them of the two great parties,
would need no additional enlightenment or incitement.
1. Would the party that within the past twenty-five
years, in its caucuses and conventions, in Congress and on
scores of battlefields, with all its power, its diabolical
power of voice and pen, of sword and musket, labored to
destroy the best government ever organized by man; to disrupt
the most prosperous country on which the sun has ever shone,
now be the most trusted guardians of its vast and varied
interests?
2. Probably the ocean was never crossed by a steamship
whose fastidious passengers did not find enough to criticize.
But though the coffee is occasionally muddy and the chicken
ancient, yet what should we think if, to remedy the little
unavoidable annoyances, it were gravely proposed to displace
the men who for twenty-five years, and without a serious
accident, had carried the mighty vessel through wind and
storm, through icebergs and furious breakers, safely landing
her every passenger, and to reinstate officers and crew who
by a hellish device, by unmitigated and unpardonable
treachery and perfidy once deliberately undertook to steal
the cargo of that same grand old ship, and to sink her in
mid-ocean, leaving the passengers to provide for themselves
as best they could?
3. If Cleveland is elected three-fourths of his
electoral votes will come from the "Solid South," which would
have the right to demand, and without a doubt would demand, a
proportionate influence in his administration. Are the
people of the North, scores of thousands of whose sons were
starved in Southern prisons, and are sleeping in Southern
graves, willing to entrust the Government to the very men who
plotted the most infamous and gigantic rebellion of the
world, and who, when they were conquered, instead of being
shot for high treason, as by the code of civilization they
richly deserved to be, and as they would have been in any
other government on earth, by a leniency unparalleled in
history, were admitted to the identical Congress from which,
with heaven-defying perjury they seceded, but for a quarter
of a century have been "solid" against every great
Congressional measure on which, as experience has clearly
shown, the prosperity of the country depends.
4. Would the interests of the laboring man be more
effectually fostered and protected by the party that till
twenty years ago, moved heaven and earth to extend the
institution of slavery and to bind still more tightly upon
the limbs of 4,000,000 of the laborers of the country the
shackles of a perpetual and dehumanizing bondage; and through
use of its acknowledged representatives declared that even
the white laborers of the North were but the "mud sills of
society?"
5. Would the nation be more prosperous under a free
trade policy that would enable England to supply our markets
with manufactured articles, thus closing our factories or
reducing the wages of our artisans to the pauper-scale of the
Old World?
6. Would not the pulpit and the religious press of the
country be utterly divested of their moral power to rebuke
sin, if by the voice of the American people libertinism gets
practically declared to be no barrier to the highest official
station and the completest social recognition, and would not
the effect be most demoralizing upon the youth of the land
would not the standard of morality be unavoidably lowered?
7. If, as we have been told in so many words, the
private life, the individual character need not be taken into
the account when the necessary qualifications for office are
considered, may not men, revoltingly corrupt in their private
relations, occupy the pulpit, and be eminently useful and
reputable as the ministers of religion? May not men who are
reeking with the virus of licentiousness properly become
professors in our young ladies' seminaries? and might not
Judas Iscariot have protested against construing as
inconsistent with truest apostleship, his little private
matter in connection with the thirty pieces of silver?
8. Would, or could, a man of refined sensibilities
welcome to intimate social relations with his family, to his
table and his fireside, such a man as Grover Cleveland is
known to be? Or, if such a man were elected to the highest
office recognized by the constitution, would not a refined
and right minded husband and father experience irrepressible
disgust and recoil on introducing, even at the White House,
his own wife and daughters, and allowing a notorious betrayer
of women, though he were the President of the United States,
to take them by the hand? Would not such appalling
indifference to chastity, if it should become general, be
certain to react with tremendous power upon the domestic life
of the country?
Any man of average intelligence and conscientiousness,
who will seriously consider the character of these questions
and their bearing upon present political issues, can hardly
remain in doubt as to the vote he should cast, and if any
deplore the introduction into the family newspaper of matter
so offensive to a refined taste, they should consider that by
the nomination of Grover Cleveland for the Presidency they
were wantonly and defiantly flaunted in the face of the
American people, and now they cannot safely be ignored.
Yours truly,
VIDEX.
{Times, April 29, 1885, p. 2}
Letter From "Confederate."
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: There have been a
great many sarcastic remarks in the Republican papers
concerning the appointment of Confederate soldiers to
prominent positions by President Cleveland. If the writers
of these articles would calmly and reasonably consider the
condition of things, they would perceive the justice of the
appointment of Confederates to position by a President
elected by the votes of the Democratic party.
Who are more justly entitled to the appointments? Did
they not, during four years of a bloody war, bear the banner
of Democracy against the aggressions of the Republican party?
Since the war have they not reconquered the Southern States
for the Democratic party? Have they not been consistent in
their fight against the radicalism of the Republican party?
What right have the stay-at-home Democrats in war times
to any recognition to honors by a Democratic President? Did
they not leave their brother Democrats in the South to risk
their lives in the struggle, while they at the North took the
oath of allegiance to the Lincoln government, and professed
to be loyal and against their brethren in the field? It is
true they voted for McClellan, and have never spared an
opportunity of voting with their Southern brethren, but
always avoided any danger?
The election of Cleveland was a Confederate victory, as
much so as Bull Run, or any other battle won by the
Confederacy during the war. We brought the Solid South,
which we had conquered, into a solid line, and aided by the
Northern Democrats and a few sore-headed Republicans at the
North, we secured enough electoral votes to elect our man.
It matters little whether that man ever risked his life or
not in defense of the Confederacy that was the true
representative of straight-out Democracy for so many years.
He was elected by our votes, and he is honorably recognizing
the men who put him into office. As it was a Confederate
Democratic triumph, the purest element of National Democracy,
it is but just and fair that every important office should be
given to that portion of the party, and President Cleveland
honors himself in faithfully recognizing the Solid South,
without which the Democratic party could not be victorious.
Let the Republican papers look at this matter
reasonably, and they certainly will not revile President
Cleveland for being faithful to the men who placed him in
power.
CONFEDERATE.
{Times, July 16, 1886, p. 2}
Ought to be Pensioned.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: President Cleveland
was drafted during the civil war and sent a substitute. Said
substitute was killed at Gettysburg. Now the President
fought, bled and died for his country by proxy. During a
visit to the Gettysburg battlefield it is said the President
was visibly affected when he pointed out the spot where he
was killed. Now is not the President, or Mrs. Cleveland,
entitled to a pension?
VETERAN.
As the 1888 election approached concern over the automatic 153 electoral
votes that a Democratic candidate would receive from the Southern states
mounted.
{Times, April 27, 1887, p. 9}
153!
Los Angeles, April 25.--[To the Editor of the Times.]
Every loyal Republican is anxious to see elected a Republican
President. The time for voting will soon be at hand--a year
is but a flash, and then the contest comes.
At the first look, what do we see? It is an appalling
view. On the face of our Democratic opponents there is the
suspicious and vicious 153. On every Democratic face is
branded the ever-present 153. Every Democratic leader boasts
of 153. The present Democratic President is labeled 153.
The next campaign starts under the boastful guarantee of the
153 electoral votes for the Democratic nominee, and every
Democrat winks with the pleased expression, "We have only 48
electoral votes to make our majority." The voter has heard
of this 153, but what shall it be called? It becomes an
astounding absurdity in our American politics--absurdity
unbounded; absurdity diabolical! From whence hast thou come?
O, shades of Jefferson! is this what you send to torment us?
Heroic Jackson, is this the legacy entailed by the war on a
suffering people? Surely it must be some ghost of departed
days that brings this absurdity of a guaranteed 153 electoral
votes at the beginning of a canvass.
A party absurdity produced by force. Did Jefferson and
Jackson depend on force of that kind to sustain a Republic?
Have we not grown into a new kind of Republic, such as
Jefferson and Jackson never dreamed of? An absurd Democracy!
A bastard Democracy! A child born of the South, but adopted
and nursed by northern Democrats, since the Democratic party
accepts the absurdity.
The American people will some time ask, How many bastard
children shall we have of this prolific 153? We are no
longer a Republic! We are no longer a Democracy--only a
bastard one born of the 153 absurdity. It is time sensible
Democrats realized this as an absurdity, and called upon
their party leaders to repudiate it as "unconstitutional."
Will not loyal Democrats consider--will they not, in all
seriousness, ask whether this kind of 153 is not of a foreign
and un-American spirit, and whether, in its final effect and
influence, it may not mean their own destruction and the ruin
of the whole country? It is certain that power obtained by
fraud cannot be held except by continuing the fraud--the
horrors that it will bring are too terrible to contemplate.
If Cleveland refuses to run for a second term, it is a
sign that one Democrat at least, is convinced it is not for a
good reputation to be seated in the presidential chair by
fraud.
*
{Times, Aug. 28, 1888, p. 6}
Electoral Inequalities.
Compton, Aug. 25.--[To the Editor of The Times.] I find
in the electoral and popular vote of 1884 these facts:
Electoral Vote. Popular Vote.
Alabama.......... 10 152,489
California....... 8 196,641
Georgia.......... 12 142,648
Wisconsin........ 11 319,870
South Carolina... 9 91,497
New Jersey....... 9 206,753
From this it appears that 15,000 in Alabama have the
same vote in the Electoral College as 24,000 in California;
11,000 in Georgia are good for 31,000 Badgers in Wisconsin;
while 10,000 South Carolinians are equal to 23,000 Jersey
mechanics.
I had supposed the old fallacy of "one southerner good
for three northern men" was shot all to pieces during the
war, and surrendered to Grant at Appomattox.
Why is this thus?
FRANK.
B) ETHNIC VOTERS, THIRD PARTIES AND REPUBLICANS
The anti-Chinese feeling, widespread in the state in the 1880s, had each
party concerned that it would be characterized as not aggressive enough in its
hostility to the Chinese. Editor Otis reflected his Republican leanings in the
editorial postscript he attached to this inquiry from "Harrison Man."
{Times, July 23, 1888, p. 3}
Naturalized Chinamen.
Los Angeles, July 11.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
How many naturalized Chinamen are there in the United States?
A Democrat claims 10,000 who vote the Republican ticket.
HARRISON MAN.
[The Democrat who told you that is a liar and doubtless
a horse-thief into the bargain. It is said that there are
about 13 naturalized Chinamen in the city of San Francisco,
and probably the entire number in the United States does not
reach 100. At least 97 of these will instinctively vote for
Cleveland.--Ed. Times.]
Boyle Workman, whose father was a Democratic mayor of Los Angeles in the
late 1880s, recalled that both major political parties tried to buy elections
by recruiting voters among Indians, Mexicans and others whom he believed should
not be participating in the political process. Since each party printed its
own ballots, distinguished by their color, it was easy for party hacks to note
how the ringers voted, rewarding them with a dollar or two per vote after the
ballot went into the box.
African American voters were in a separate category. Republicans had
supported their enfranchisement at the end of the Civil War, correctly assuming
that blacks would vote for the party of emancipation and Lincoln. Their vote
would not only serve as a means of gaining control of the ex-Confederate states
but in many Northern states the black vote could be the difference between
victory or defeat since the two major parties were nearly equal. Even in Los
Angeles the black vote potentially held the balance of power, with the two
major parties separated by a relatively few votes. J. J. Warner, Benjamin Hays
and J. P. Widney estimated that in 1875 black voters in the city numbered about
75 out of a total African American population of 175. {Historians have
neglected the story of the county's first black voters, so far unidentified.}
When in 1888 the Prohibition party chose as its candidate for constable S.
B. Bows, a carpenter and the first African American to be nominated by any
political party in Southern California, Republicans feared that black
defections from the Grand Old Party might result in Democratic victories. This
gave added significance to a report that Thomas Pearson, editor of one of the
city's two black newspapers, was involved in an effort to lead blacks into the
Democratic camp. The "3000 colored votes" claimed by the authors of the
following letter was probably an exaggeration since the total black population
of the county, including women and children, was only 1817 in 1890, and the
city's black population was 590. Robert W. Stewart, co-author of this letter,
was one of the city's two black policemen. Patrick M. Hickman was listed as a
teamster in the 1888 city directory. The subject of their letter, Robert C. O.
Benjamin, described by historian William J. Simmons as "Lawyer - Author -
Editor - Champion of the Race," had been in California only a short time before
coming to Los Angeles in the late 1880s.
{Times, Sept. 15, 1888, p. 3}
Benjamin Bounced.
Los Angeles, Sept. 13.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
In the issue of Saturday, September 8th, the Weekly Observer,
a paper published in this city, ostensibly in the interest of
the colored Republicans, appears an editorial headed, "The
Republican County Central Committee a Humbug." The editor of
the Observer has taken a big job, under contract with the
Democratic boodle gang, in which he is to deliver to that
party the 3000 colored votes of this county,
As we are some of those voters, we wish to inform R. C.
O. (Recently Converted Over, by the boodle process) Benjamin
and his right bower, T. (Tickle me and I'll tickle you)
Pearson, late delegate to the Republican State Convention (by
the begging process), that he will find it a hard matter to
deliver the goods. When the colored men of this county need
a guardian, they will not choose a jack-leg lawyer with solid
South white blood in his veins. Nor do they need a boss of
the same stripe, nor yet an oath-bound league by which they
can be led blindfolded into the Democratic camp. It is a
great pity that this man Pearson has forgotten so much, when
the colored men need a Moses to lead them, and still a
greater pity that Benjamin has not sense enough to keep his
mouth shut. Just how much this shyster and his right bower
have got of the surplus the Democrats are so anxious to get
rid of is as yet a secret between them, but we will wager a
possum skin that the lawyer gets it all in the end.
But a few weeks ago this halfbreed Benjamin went to
Boyle Heights and made a speech, in which he said: "I am
loaded to the muzzle! I am ready to go off with the wrongs
of my people at the South, where they are not allowed to vote
their sentiments." Yet, in a week we find him ready to
defend ballot-box stealing and fraud on the people, in the
Fourth Ward of this city. Then he was a rampant, hot
enthusiastic Republican. Now he says the colored vote "is
not solid for the county ticket." Whence comes this sudden
change, this cold wave? Why does he now want colored men put
under oath to obey their leaders and officers of a league?
Is it to keep them true to the Republican faith? Is it not
more probable that Democratic boodle is at the bottom of this
remarkable change. Now, we wish to say to all colored men
who think anything of themselves, their country and its
progress, and who remember their previous condition under
Democratic rule, that to join a secret political society,
with oaths to bind you, to the will of any man, or set of
men, is to yield up your manhood, your liberty of thought and
action; it is to enter into voluntary slavery of mind and
body, and the outcome of it all will be to find a Democratic
ticket in your hands on election day. We are glad that but
35 out of 3000 have so far been found who could be induced to
join such an unpatriotic, hellish union.
(Signed) R. W. STEWART.
P. M. HICKMAN.
The Prohibition party was the strongest third party in Los Angeles in the
1880s. Many Republicans, while sympathetic to the anti-liquor position taken
by that party, were not content to confine their politics to a single issue.
As the 1888 presidential election approached, they looked upon Prohibition
candidates as likely to draw enough votes from Republicans to guarantee another
Democratic victory. Republicans who were inclined to stray from a straight
party vote in order to support Prohibitionist candidates in local elections
were told that they not only wasted their ballots but, at the same time,
contributed to Democratic victories.
{Times, July 2, 1888, p. 5}
The Prohibitory Party -- Its True Object.
Los Angeles, June 28.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Would you please answer the following questions, called forth
by your article in Tuesday's issue on the above topic:
1. What are the exact words uttered at the recent
Prohibition Convention in Indianapolis in which it was stated
that the purpose of this party is to destroy the Republican
party?
2. What are the "false pretenses" under which it is
carrying on its movements?
3. What are the proofs of "the alliance between the
saloon interest and the third party," and of the desire of
the liquor traffic for the overthrow of the Republican party?
Kindly give the undeniable facts and the exact words
spoken, not even opinions. Actual proof of the statements
contained in the last question cannot fail to bring back a
good many into the Republican ranks. Yours very truly,
A. INWOOD.
[The sentiment quoted below was, more than any other,
subscribed to and applauded by St. John and his associates
lately assembled in national convention at Indianapolis:
Cleveland will be elected in 1888. The Prohibition
party will elect its candidates in 1892. We'll destroy the
Republicans first, after that the Democrats.
The following utterance is also significant:
"Our mission this year is not so much to elect our own
ticket, for we do not expect to do that, but to bury the
Republican party so deep that it will not be in the way in
1892."--[Rev. Dr. Goodwin, Prohibitionist, Los Angeles.
This furnishes a sufficient reply to all the above
questions.--Ed. Times.]
{Times, Aug. 6, 1888, p. 7}
An Opinion About an Opinion.
Los Angeles, Aug. 4.--[To the Editor of The Times.] By
accident I recently picked up a copy of the Pacific Opinion,
ostensibly a temperance paper (prohibition, probably), which
shows from the first to the last line that it is an annex to
the Democratic party, and its intense hatred of the
Republican party.
This sheet publishes a fac-simile copy of a city saloon
license with the caption, "The Shame of Our Civilization."
The caption would come nearer the facts did it read, "The
Shame of the Prohibition Party in Los Angeles."
It is an undisputed fact that the Prohibitionists
favored the Democrats in our last municipal election, and by
its votes placed that party in power in this city. They are
thus responsible for an increase of over 40 per cent. of
saloons in this city, and they seem to enjoy their handiwork.
It is well known to the leaders of the Prohibition party
that prohibition is an impossibility so long as the
Government of the United States legalizes the manufacture of
spirits by a tax, and so long as it, by collecting millions
annually, supervises its manufactory and remains a factor in
the copartnership.
They know full well that until this tax is abolished
there is no possible chance for the success of prohibition,
and yet they are abusing our party for incorporating in its
platform a clause recommending the repeal of tax on the
manufacture of spirits.
That party, by becoming a tail piece to the Democratic
party during the last national election, shows its utter
insincerity, its desire for unlimited whiskey, by assisting
to place that party in power. They well know that their
candidate sold the Republican party out to the Democracy;
that he was never sincere, hence we hear little of him in
their organs except as an occasional lectures upon
temperance, a principle which he crucified to its death.
C) THE MURCHISON LETTER
Benjamin Harrison's narrow victory over Cleveland in 1888 has been
attributed in part to the so-called "Murchison Letter," which was first
published in the Times {but should not be considered a letter to the editor}.
During the campaign Pomona Republican George Osgoodby, using the alias
"Murchison," wrote to Lord Lionel Sackville-West, British minister to the
United States, asking how a former English citizen now residing in California
should vote in the upcoming election. The answer - that Cleveland would be
more favorable to Britain - and the original query were published in the Times
after Osgoodby shared the reply with Otis. The letters were reprinted in
papers across the nation and alienated Irish-Americans, who otherwise might
have voted for Cleveland, and offended other potential Democratic voters who
were upset at what seemed to be foreign interference in an American election.
Harrison carried Los Angeles county by over 3000 votes and won the state by
7000.
While the Times gave a great deal of publicity to the letters, and
eventually revealed the true identity of "Murchison," few letters from
Angelenos appeared in the paper regarding the affair. This was one of them.
{Times, Nov. 27, 1888, p. 6}
Bounty or Pension for Wolf Scalps.
Long Beach, Nov. 19.--[To the Editor of The Times.] It
has been the custom and law of countries and States to pay
bounties for wolf, coyote and wild-cat scalps. Now,
Murchison of Pomona set a trap in the United States and
caught an English wolf, and Grover Cleveland went to his
rescue and got bit, which will necessitate a trip to Dr.
Pierce's medical institution in Buffalo, New York, for
treatment. When Grover found himself bit, he got mad,
swelled and bowed his neck like a buffalo bull, and went for
Mr. Wolf. He chopped off his head and tail, and Secretary
Bayard sacked him, and sent him back to England, to await the
disposition of Her Majesty.
Now, though I am 83 years old, I have not lost the sense
of justice. I think that Murchison should at least receive a
bounty or be pensioned for his services in catching the wolf.
That is my old fogy way of thinking.
HENRY LYSTER.
(Who has voted for 16 Presidents.)
D) THE VOTING PROCESS
The political corruption of the post-Civil War decades would eventually
culminate in major changes in the way Americans conducted their elections.
Those changes had not yet begun by the 1880s, but in the next quarter century
reformers, outraged by Boss Tweed in New York, Boss Buckley in San Francisco
and irregularities such as Boyle Workman reported in Los Angeles and which
occurred all over the country, would institute procedures to guarantee that
ballots were not only secretly cast but that they were honestly counted. In
addition, through the trilogy of direct legislation - the initiative, recall
and referendum - voters would be given greater power. Los Angeles would be a
pioneer in the use of these devices. The conditions that brought about
political reform in the Progressive Era were touched on in part by several
letters that appeared in the Times during the 1880s. Both "Quis Vituperavit"
and Horace Bell, the latter in a letter printed in an earlier chapter, made
reference in June, 1882, to two officeholders who were ex-convicts without
naming either. One can only wonder if Bell wrote both letters. The
officeholders were not identified.
{Times, June 10, 1882, p. 3}
MORE ABOUT THE PRIMARIES.
Something of Our Convicts. How They Save Their Citizenship.
Editor Times: To a stranger or new comer the
disgraceful proceeding of the late Democratic primaries, the
purchasing of votes, seems unaccountable; to one who has
observed this time honored custom it is quite plain. The
lazaroni the vagabondi, that interesting class of our
liberty-loving citizens who go to make up and constitute the
purchasable vote, are in reality the balance of political
power. Their votes elect judges, ministerial officers,
municipal rulers, Justices of the Peace, Constables and all
others; and must be secured at whatever cost. This lazaroni
are the fruits of a mistaken clemency. A vicious leniency in
dealing with the rascals who are sent to the penitentiary,
who are invariably restored to citizenship on the expiration
of their terms of servitude, if not pardoned before their
terms are half expired. Few good men get into a
penitentiary, still fewer good men get out. Only in very
exceptional and rare cases should a convict be restored to
citizenship, and still rarer should he be permitted to hold
office.
We must have in Los Angeles county at the very least 500
ex-convicts, who have been pardoned or restored to
citizenship, two of whom hold office in this would be
virtuous city, and these 500 ex-convicts are on terms of
absolute political eqality with our best citizens, and wield
the balance of power by selling their votes to the highest
bidder.
Five hundred ex-convict voters in our county and two
office holders in our pretty little city!
Think of this, oh, ye virtuous citizens, and answer the
question of whither are we drifting? And if not afraid of
being assassinated by some ex-convict assassin, give
expression to your highest sentiments by speaking out and
driving from power and place all men who deal in the
purchasable vote or countenance those who do.
QUIS VITUPERAVIT.
{Times, Nov. 4, 1884, p. 2}
False Registration.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I am told by those who
have examined the Great Register of this county that in the
small precinct of Santa Monica there are about eight names
that should not by right be there. Some of these names are
parties living here who have not been twelve months in the
State; and some are wholly unknown to the old residents of
the precinct.
Now if this proportion runs throughout the county it
would indicate nearly six hundred erroneous registrations.
I think greater care should be exercised by our local
registration officers in matters that so closely affect our
free government.
"FAIR COUNT."
Santa Monica, Oct. 31, 1883. {1884? - Ed.}
{Times, Aug. 28, 1886, p. 2}
Kicking Against the One Year Rule.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: Owing to the fact that
the political cauldron is in such a violent state of
ebulition, my attention has been called to the laws of
California, regarding the exercises of the elective
franchise. I find that according to their provisions, a
resident of any State must wait one year after removing to
this, before he is admitted to citizenship. Now this appears
to me to be a great injustice to thousands who have already
come, and thousands more who will come to make their
permanent abode in this commonwealth. Take my own case as an
example. I was born in an Eastern State forty years ago, and
have ever since been a citizen of the United States, and yet
for the crime of coming to this Coast to live, I am for a
whole year debarred the priviledge of exercising one of the
most highly prized rights of an American citizen.
In many of the States the time required is only four or
six months, which gives the State ample time to ascertain
whether a man is a fit subject to exercise this right. The
most ignorant and degraded being from Europe can come to this
commonwealth and become a citizen, with all the rights that
it implies almost as soon after reaching the boundaries of
the State, as the most intelligent native American who is so
unfortunate as to have been born outside of California. It
is high time this unjust law was repealed, and one more in
keeping with the genius of our institutions and the demands
of justice and right enacted.
G. A. WOOD, M. D.
268, South Spring Street.
{Times, June 2, 1888, p. 3}
A Saloon No Place for It.
Los Angeles, June 1.--[To the Editor of The Times.] I am
no Prohibitionist, but myself and many others object to have
polls opened in a saloon as is and has been the case in the
Fifth Ward. I consider it a great honor to be an American
citizen and endowed with the franchise privilege. I hold my
vote as a sacred trust to be exercised with due deliberation
and careful consideration, and contend that the surroundings
of the ballot box should be of a noble character to inspire
us with patriotism, and to do justice to the question before
us. Such being my idea I will not disgrace my franchise
privilege by going into a saloon to vote.
A VOTER.