1923

postcard-crop

A HATED CORNER OF COURTHOUSE SQUARE

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

What does a town do after suffering a traumatic event? Try to quickly forget or make an effort to remember? It was mid-December 1920, after the sheriff was murdered and his killers were lynched. Santa Rosa seemed to want to move on; Christmas was two weeks away and most everyone had better things to do than stew over those horrific events.

Yet there were some who couldn’t let it pass. Sheriff James “Sunny Jim” Petray was extremely popular throughout Sonoma County, known as a cheerful guy with a big heart. He deserved to be remembered and honored – a monument dedicated to him, maybe.

This is the surprising epilogue to the series “THERE WILL BE PRICES PAID” about the aftermath of the 1920 lynching in Santa Rosa. It’s surprising because some were very upset over the design and setting of the memorial to Petray. It’s also surprising because in more than a century we haven’t heard about them getting so worked up – I stumbled across this forgotten history while researching something completely different.

Our story picks up four days after the sheriff’s funeral. The concept of building a Petray Memorial Fund quickly turned to organizing a benefit baseball game between Santa Rosa’s home team Rosebuds and a pickup team of major league professionals spending the winter in San Francisco. Included were indeed some celebrities of the time: “Lefty” O’Doul, “Duster” Mails and “Duffy” Lewis. (I know nothing about baseball so anyone who wants to argue about them pls. squabble elsewhere.) The Press Democrat claimed Babe Ruth might play, which was never likely.

With only two months to organize (game day was February 22) the community came together and pulled it off with remarkable ease. Extra streetcars and buses were scheduled. They formed committees galore; one prepped the grounds at Recreation Park (right behind our present high school) and extended the bleachers; others managed ticket sales by districts. A brass band of forty local musicians formed to play at the courthouse before the game, with Lee Brothers’ freight trucks prepared to cart them over to the baseball field so they could toot more tunes between innings.

The Governor sent his regrets for not being able to attend but the Lieutenant Governor threw out the first pitch, the band entertained and comics performed a warmup show. The “Salient Six” all-stars beat the Rosebuds 2-1.

At $1.00 each, tickets were “going like hot cakes at Davis’ Rotisserie” (per Santa Rosa Republican). The Farm Bureau bought a block so they could attend together, as did the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce. The sheriff’s office in Eureka ordered 100 and the San Francisco sheriff took 500. Another 700 were sold at the gate. The final attendance was not recorded, but estimated up to 3,000. The total receipts ended up being over $2700, with a net profit of $2400 – over $80k today.

They had expected to raise about $800 so getting 3x as much was quite a windfall. Original memorial plans were modest – just a drinking fountain in front of the sheriff’s office (on Hinton Ave. across from Courthouse Square). But now that there were fistfuls of money available, ideas on how it should be spent rolled in. The Sonoma County Federation of Women’s Clubs lobbied for a double row of trees planted along Redwood Highway, which the Santa Rosa Republican was quick to shoot down:


…to all those who suggest the planting of trees etc it must be remembered that those who paid their money for the tickets to see the game and the players themselves did so with the understanding that the memorial was to be in the form of a shaft [water fountain] or monument and in no other form and their wishes most certainly must be respected above all others no matter how worthy they may seem.

A committee of three was formed to make a decision; it was headed by Judge Seawell and included a representative from Petaluma and Healdsburg. By the end of the year it was announced they had commissioned J. W. Dolliver, architect of the beautiful courthouse, to construct a memorial on the northeast corner of Courthouse Square.

The design would be a kind of proscenium stage, raised a couple of steps above the sidewalk and 24 feet wide, with a drinking fountain on each side. The back was curved and at the top was carved, “Noble Life Crowned With Heroic Death Rises Above Self and Outlives the Pride and Pomp and Glory of the Mightiest Empire of The Earth.” (It was from an 1868 speech by future president Garfield at the first Memorial Day celebration.)

But this was to be no empty stage – a San Francisco artist was separately commissioned to create a statue. “The main figure in the design is the Goddess of Justice, seated, with sword and wreath upon her knee. The whole is to be eight feet high and constructed of artificial stone,” wrote the Healdsburg Tribune. It was so large that sculptor Henry von Sabern used three tons of clay just to build the model.

It was hoped the memorial would be finished in time to dedicate it on the 1922 California Admission Day (Sept. 9) but the sculpture wasn’t quite ready. But by the end of that month it was en route to Santa Rosa, even though it was so weighty von Sabern had to cut it into sixty pieces for shipping.

Within days of its arrival, furor erupted. Critics from Santa Rosa, Petaluma and Healdsburg dumped on both the monument’s design and location. The Argus-Courier said there was broad feeling it was “…out of harmony with the setting, and from its appearance and the inscription it bears will be a constant reminder of a deplorable incident in the city’s history that many believe should be forgotten…the inscription is said to be one in which death is glorified.”

An anti-memorial committee was formed. Lawyers got involved. As construction was underway to build Dolliver’s setting for the statue, an injunction to stop work was considered, but it had already halted.

Proposals were made for a less conspicuous spot. The Healdsburg cemetery where Petray was buried or that town’s plaza, perhaps. Or maybe Burbank Park (the future location of Santa Rosa Junior College). And why not Petaluma? “We have lots of nice parks,” wrote a resident there.

Members of the original memorial committee and their supporters were gobsmacked by the sudden opposition. A model of the design had been on display for months and no one had raised objections. Harold Rosenberg, the Healdsburg representative said firmly there was no Plan B to modify the design or change location.

About a dozen of the anti’s met with the memorial committee and it became clear nearly all of the protest was coming from Santa Rosa. “One speaker stated that a majority of the people of Santa Rosa were in opposition to having the fountain erected on the court house grounds, but, according to Mr. Rosenberg, the committee believes this statement to be far-fetched and not based on fact,” reported the Healdsburg Tribune.

Judge Seawell said at the hearing “he believed the objections made so far had not disclosed the real reasons why some of the citizens do not want the memorial at the court house.”

It really shouldn’t have been a surprise. Exactly six months earlier, the new president of the Rural Cemetery Association had the lynching tree be cut down. She was backed by members of the Saturday Afternoon Club who signed a statement the tree was “a reminder of an episode which it were best for our community that we and the world [to] quickly forget.” About half of the identified people at the hearing for the memorial were clubwomen whose names were also on that statement. Blocking the Petray monument was just another try to make their feelings of shame go away.

Another hearing was held. Months passed. It was May, 1923 and all deferred to Judge Seawell – who was now on the state Supreme Court – to decide what should be done.

Meanwhile, Santa Rosa held a Prune Festival (!) which happened to reveal the issue was causing bad blood between Santa Rosa and Healdsburg. Architect Dolliver’s platform was mostly finished before the work stoppage and the city was using it as an official information booth, but a rumor spread in Healdsburg that hot dogs were being sold on the site. The Tribune editor demanded “a full and honorable apology” be made: “We here in Healdsburg feel that the spot where the Petray memorial fountain was to have been erected long before this but for the selfishness of a few Santa Rosans, is entitled to at least common decency in its treatment by the grasping county seaters…”

More months passed. Seawell and the other two members of the committee met in August to make a final decision but, darn it, they forgot to tell the “ten or 12 local clubwomen who have interested themselves in the matter” that the time of the meeting was changed.

Several newsworthy items came out at the meeting. It was revealed the anti’s were mainly upset about von Sabern’s statue, not the idea of a memorial to Petray. No, they didn’t like the Courthouse Square location, but weren’t motivated enough to put in the effort to find a different place for it. “Although their leaders had been communicated with repeatedly,” the judge was quoted in the Press Democrat, “…they have never come forward with a suggestion for solving the problem.”

But the big news was that the committee had received warnings the monument would be dynamited if built at that location. While such threats would merit a speedy phone call to the FBI today, in 1923 nobody – including local police – was very concerned. Or at least, didn’t seem to be, judging by the papers.

The committee’s final decision was worthy of King Solomon. A memorial would be built on the corner of Courthouse Square as planned. But if the anti’s could come up with $500 – presumably the commission paid to von Sabern – the statue would be eliminated. They had ten days to raise the money.

That was a lot to quickly fundraise ($9,000+ today) in a small town just to have something not done, and the Healdsburg Tribune crowed the opposition “has simmered down to one or two individuals.” An anonymous letter was sent around pleading for donations so the site could be used as a visitor kiosk that included a public restroom.

Thus sometime in October 1923, construction of the memorial was finished, complete with statue – but there was no dedication ceremony or other acknowledgement of the work being done. Perhaps there was more concern about the mad dynamiter showing up than anyone wanted to admit.

– –

YOU ARE A FAMOUS SCULPTOR, RIGHT?

It seemed like a win-win. The Petray Memorial Committee commissioned a well-known San Francisco artist to create a dignified sculpture to honor our fallen sheriff. For Henry von Sabern it was an opportunity to create something grand, a masterpiece with such artistic merit it would cement his reputation as a California sculptor of renown.

Von Sabern (1883-1947) said he was the son of a high-ranking German military governor (uh, nope) and told people he was formally Count Henry Albert Maria von Sabern. He supposedly studied at Oxford and Brussels University, winning the Prix de Rome scholarship at age eighteen. His monuments and sculptures were found throughout Europe and he was considered the best portrait sculptor in Belgium. There is no evidence any of his claimed achievements were true. No examples or descriptions of any actual artwork can be found prior to the Petray commission.

In the early 1920s he appeared in Bay Area newspapers because he offered reporters erudite (and sometimes gossipy) opinions about art and other artists. He also hosted a popular weekly salon at his studio in San Francisco’s Chinatown where he held forth on all topics regarding the arts. His name was often dropped into articles about his famous friends, particularly writers George Sterling and Theodore Dreiser. (In a 1921 diary entry, Dreiser commented he found Henry “aggressive and a little boring.”)

We know he came to America c. 1910 and traveled between San Francisco and the Midwest; sculptor Heinrich Von Sabern showed up in the 1912 SF city directory. He met an heiress in Chicago who owned a historic farm in Nebraska City (south of Omaha) which included a 52 room mansion. Despite having no apparent knowledge of agriculture and livestock, he worked there as farm manager for several years. After the U.S. entered World War I he was suspected of conducting some sort of “experiments” as a German spy – a common fear even found in Sonoma County and elsewhere at the time.

Even though the Petray monument was a significant commission, he was unable to find meaningful assignments afterwards. In a 1923 profile he complained of being reduced to sculpting mannequins, modeling heads for hat shops and making backgrounds for store display windows.

At least five photographs of various portrait busts from the mid-1920s can be found in newspapers including his model of Dreiser, which is so cringeworthy it’s hard to believe it was made by someone who peddled himself as a great artiste. Perhaps the unspoken reason why our Santa Rosa ancestors were so unhappy with the Petray sculpture was because they were embarrassed to have spent so much money on a supposed famous sculptor who was all talk and no chisel.

dreisersABOVE: The real Theodore Dreiser. BELOW: Henry von Sabern’s bust of Dreiser. Sculpture image from San Francisco Examiner, August 24 1924

What was so objectionable about the sculpture? All we really know is the seated woman was larger than life-sized and holding a sword and laurel wreath. It was placed in front of our county courthouse and there are scads of Lady Justice statues to be found outside of court buildings across the country.

Although all local newspapers referred to it as the Goddess of Justice, it’s more likely von Sabern intended to represent Lady Columbia, which was then enjoying a post-WWI revival. No mention described the statue holding scales or wearing a blindfold, as usual for Justice figures. Columbia usually holds a sword, laurel wreath and olive branch. She’s mostly forgotten today except as the woman in the Columbia Pictures logo who looks vaguely like young Hillary Clinton. (Come here for local history but stick around for the odd bits of trivia.)

There are no photos or drawings to be found, which may seem curious since it was a major work from an artist regarded as significant. As discussed in the sidebar, that wasn’t unusual – no views of any von Sabern sculptures can be found until years later. Yet while Courthouse Square was always a photographer’s favorite, there’s not a single image I can find that includes the statue, even shown partially or in the background to a street scene. That’s quite hard to explain.

Let’s now shift forward 8½ years, to 1932. Santa Rosa’s 20-30 Club took up the statue issue, showing those who didn’t like it weren’t just clubwomen from the lynching era. A Press Democrat article remarked it had been “the center of controversy and objection for years” and later that it “was often subject to ridicule.”

The PD further let drop an astonishing fact – the Petray memorial didn’t mention Petray anywhere. “There is nothing on the memorial now to explain that it is dedicated to the memory of an officer who was slain in pursuance of his duty.” The Supervisors granted permission for the club to remove the statue and replace it with a plaque. Also to be added were concrete benches.

To help raise the $350 estimated to remodel the monument, the club hosted a “Midnight Whoopee Show” at the California Theater. Dance music was provided by Brick Morse’s Collegians “who are famous.” There was also community singing, confetti and streamers, a “singing ball” (huh?) plus a showing of the latest Laurel & Hardy laff riot followed by a comedy about WWI doughboys starring young Spencer Tracy. You would have hated yourself the next morning if you missed all that fun. Swing it, Brick!

“The Concrete Lady” (as it was nicknamed, according to the Santa Rosa Republican) was removed June 21, 1932. What happened to it was never explained. As the job was done in a single day by a local contractor, I doubt it was carefully disassembled into its original sixty parts. Most likely a couple of guys fell upon it with sledgehammers.

The two concrete benches were made and the bronze plaque was mounted on Dolliver’s wall. The inscription said it was in memory of Sheriff James A. Petray: “His was a Sacrifice of Self for Law, Liberty and Home.” And so things peacefully remained for more than thirty years.

Our tale ends in 1966, when they demolished the courthouse and the memorial along with it. In a Sunday feature on court history the Press Democrat included a last look. The benches appear too filthy to sit upon, and it looks like a corner has been knocked off one of them. Whatever greenery they had climbing over it was untended and either dormant or dead. All in all, the thing was the sort of shambles you might spot in the background of a scene from The Munsters.

The Petray plaque was preserved, and now is mounted in the lobby of the sheriff’s office.

 

Post-1932 postcard of Courthouse Square. Image courtesy Denise Hill
Post-1932 postcard of Courthouse Square. Image courtesy Denise Hill

 
Petray memorial with light snowfall, 1947. Image courtesy Sonoma County Library
Petray memorial with light snowfall, 1947. Image courtesy Sonoma County Library

 
Admission Day, 1947. Image courtesy Sonoma County Library
Admission Day, 1947. Image courtesy Sonoma County Library

 

sources
BIG LEAGUE BASEBALL GAME PLAN STARTED HERE TO GET FUNDS FOR JIM PETRAY MEMORIAL MONUMENT

Citizens of Santa Rosa and Sonoma county have expressed themselves in favor of erecting a fitting monument to the memory of its martyred sheriff, James A. Petray, and while the movement has not as yet been organized, plans are now being made to form such an organization. The Republican has had several letters on this subject and the writer of one of these letters who refused to disclose his name sent in $5 last week to start the movement for a monument to be erected in the memory of the late sheriff.

Yesterday Duffy Lewis, of Boyes Springs, who was a great admirer of Petray called on Walter Nagle. While Nagle and Lewis were talking over some their mutual friends in the major leagues, and talking on general topics of the day, the conversation veered to Sonoma county’s sheriff.

MONUMENT NEEDED

“They should erect a monument to such a glorious man to perpetuate his name,” said Lewis.

“Just the thing,” said Walter Nagle, “and I believe a good way to do it would be to play a ball game some fine Sunday here and donate the proceeds to a monument fund.”

“Great” said Lewis, “and I’ll you what do I’ll do; I’ll not only play in such a game, but I’ll bring up a team of big leaguers to play your team, and we should be able to put it over. I can get ‘Lefty’ O’Doul, of the New York Highlanders, Sammy Bohne and a fine assortment of players, and I believe Jack McCarthy, one of greatest umpires that ever wore a mask, and a former Santa Rosa ball player would volunteer his services as one of the umpires…

…Nagle agreed with Lewis and even elaborated on the idea or a fitting monument for Sonoma county’s martyred sheriff. He said that if a fund committee was organized properly that he felt it would not be a difficult thing to get a local theater to help out, secure excellent talent and give a “Petray monument” performance some afternoon…

– Santa Rosa Republican, December 18 1920<

BABE RUTH MAY PLAY BALL HERE

Plans Going Forward for All-Star Game to Start the Petray Memorial Fund.

Details of the plans for the proposed Petray Memorial ball game will be worked out within the next few days. “Duffy” Lewis, one of the most prominent figures in baseball, was in Santa Rosa yesterday to confer with Manager Walter Nagle of the Rosebuds. Lewis reports that he has a team of big league stars that he will bring up here to play the Rosebuds any Sunday Nagle says the word. He says that the ball players and newspaper writers around the bay are all anxious to help.

The team that will appear here will be under the management of Harry Wolverton of Coast League fame.

If satisfactory arrangements can be made with the Petray family the matter will be taken up with the board of supervisors.

Among some of the stars that it is planned to bring here are Roy Corhan, Justin Fitzgerald, “Lefty” O’Doul and Sammy Bohne. It is possible that Babe Ruth may also appear.

– Press Democrat, December 30 1920

 

MONEY POURS IN FOR PETRAY GAME TUESDAY

– Press Democrat, February 19 1921

And to all those who suggest the planting of trees etc it must be remembered that those who paid their money for the tickets to see the game and the players themselves did so with the understanding that the memorial was to be in the form of a shaft or monument and in no other form and their wishes most certainly must be respected above all others no matter how worthy they may seem.

– Santa Rosa Republican, February 26 1921

JUDGE SEAWELL TO HEAD PETRAY MEMORIAL BOARD

…The meeting was held in the office of Sheriff John M. Boyes, and was presided over by Walter H. Nagle. It was deemed advisable to name a committee of three members instead of a large committee. Nagle stated Monday evening that $2400 had been raised by the benefit ball game played here on Washington’s birthday. This is the net total after paying all expenses. There are several persons that still have tickets out and have not sent in an accounting. The committee requests that these people make a report immediately, as they wish to wind up the financial affairs of the tickets as soon as possible. This showing of $2400 is especially gratifying, as at first it was expected to raise only about $800, the final expectation before the game was $2000.

– Press Democrat, March 29 1921

SELECTED MEMORIAL FOR LATE SHERIFF

With a beautiful and appropriate design selected by the committee in charge work will begin immediately on the Petray memorial to be placed in Santa Rosa in honor of the memory of James A. Petray of Healdsburg, former sheriff of Sonoma county, killed in the discharge of his duty as an officer a year ago. Selection of a design and material was made by the committee, consisting of Judge Emmet Seawell, H. B. Rosenberg of Healdsburg and Dr. Thos. Maclay of Petaluma during a visit to San Francisco early this week.

This will be in the form of a crescent, placed across the northeast corner of the county courthouse grounds. The curve of the crescent, forming the back of the memorial, will be 24 feet long and on it will be seated a statue of the Goddess of Justice. The statue will be eight feet high.

Within the curve will be a slightly raised floor of stone, and at either end will be placed a drinking fountain. The whole will be made of pressed stone, a composition [sic: composite] material capable of high finish and said by the committee to be attractive in statuary work.

The committee has approximately $2400 to devote to the memorial, the money having been raised several months ago.

– Petaluma Daily Morning Courier, December 3 1921

PETRAY MEMORIAL MODEL INSPECTED

The plaster model of the James Petray memorial seat, to be erected in Santa Rosa, was inspected on Monday by H. B. Rosenberg, Judge Emmet Seawell and Dr. Thomas Maclay of Petaluma, who went to San Francisco to see the model by Sculptor Von Sabern, who has the contract for the memorial. The main figure in the design is the Goddess of Justice, seated, with sword and wreath upon her knee. The whole is to be eight feet high and constructed of artificial stone.

– Healdsburg Tribune, February 16 1922

PETRAY MEMORIAL ARRIVES AT SANTA ROSA

All parts of the beautiful James Petray Memorial monument have arrived in Santa Rosa and are awaiting the completion of the foundation before being erected. The work of laying the concrete at the northwestern corner of the courthouse grounds is progressing rapidly and it is stated that the actual erection of the magnificent sandstone monument will be started the latter part of next week.

The monument, which was transported to Santa Rosa in sixty pieces because of its great weight, is being stored in the basement of the courthouse.

– Petaluma Argus-Courier September 27 1922

OPPOSITION TO LOCATION OF THE PETRAY MEMORIAL

Opposition to the proposed erection of the Petray memorial in front of the court house, which has been growing ever since the big statue arrived here in sections from San Francisco, has reached a point were injunction proceedings are to be sought with the idea of delaying further work until the matter can be more fully considered. Attorneys are to be consulted today regarding the best method of procedure, it was announced last night, following a conference of those interested in preserving the present sightly appearance of court square.

Opposition to the erection ot the memorial at the corner of Fourth street and Hinton avenue almost directly in front of the court house, is said to be based principally upon the fact that its character and general appearance will be out of harmony with the setting, and from its appearance and the inscription it bears will be a constant reminder of a deplorable incident in the city’s history that many believe should be forgotten. As a counter suggestion, it is proposed that the statue be erected in the Healdsburg cemetery, where brave Sheriff Petray lies buried, or in Burbank Park, recently acquired by the City of Santa Rosa.

Since its arrival here the memorial has been stored in the basement of the court house, awaiting the completion of the foundation, work upon which is now under way. The memorial, which was shipped in sections, is made of some sort of composition resembling red sandstone and will stand 10 or 12 feet in height and is nearly as wide as it is high. Resting upon a broad pedestal is the upper section of a woman’s figure representing Justice, and the inscription is said to be one in which death is glorified.

– Petaluma Argus-Courier September 28 1922

THE PETRAY MEMORIAL

It is doubtless through complete misunderstanding of the basic idea and the carrying of it out which rules certain people who feel it their duty to instruct the committee and the people at large who are raising the memorial fountain on court house square in memory of Sheriff Petray, who was killed in line of duty.

Civic pride is more than a decorative ideal. More than anything else it stands for the performance of the public duty intrusted to him by every man however obscure or humble. Our sheriff here fell in the simple carrying out this part of the protection of the public entrusted to his charge. He fell like the Unknown Soldier without a word and bravely as a man can die.

In Sonoma county there was among the people a sentiment calling for some memorial of this man. The money was raised and the memorial was wrought through the energy and judgment of the committee headed by Judge Seawell, and now the work is ready to be set in its place on a corner of the court house square.

The memorial statue is a seated figure of Justice with sword and wreath with a fountain at each side of the enclosing wall so placed as to be easily reached by the passers-by. There is beauty as well as utility in this fountain and the judge and committeemen should be congratulated upon the success they have been enabled to achieve with no great sum of money.

There is a small model of the memorial which is to bear a brief inscription to James A. Petray and all who desire to see it should be at the meeting called in Judge Seawell’s court room Friday afternoon of this week at half-past two o’clock.

There is need in this time of confusion for anything to urge on the public mind the duty of honoring the law and obeying it. The Petray memorial fountain will speak for law and order and at the same time adorn and beautify the green before the court house. It is certain that the true benefit of the people will be conserved by this statue and that those who now at the last moment obstruct further action to put the memorial in place will upon reflection see things in a more broad and patriotic light.

– Santa Rosa Republican, November 23 1922

OPPOSE ALTERATION PETRAY MEMORIAL

The difficulty over the erection of the Petray Memorial on the court house grounds in Santa Rosa is having a reflex action among Healdsburg people, which is not conductive to furthering of wholesome relations between the two cities. Healdsburg people feel that the action by those who are opposing the continuance of the plan of erecting a memorial fountain at the northwest corner of the court house lawn is not based on a broadminded foundation, and a resentment is felt at what is considered a slur on the memory of the departed sheriff, whose demise in the line of duty was so tragic. While a beligerent protest is not being made by local people, there is considerable feeling over the objections coming from the county seat. The committee selected to erect the memorial acted entirely in the open. They considered many plans and locations, finally deciding and having a model made of the selected fountain, which was on display for many months. Harold Rosenberg, local member of the committee, does not feel that any change in the plans should be made, and he is opposed to any alteration unless something decidedly better is proposed, which he feels is unlikely, as the committee exhausted every effort in attempting to get the best memorial and location.

– Healdsburg Tribune November 23 1922

PETRAY MEMORIAL ‘KICKS’ HEARD BY COMMITTEE AT MEETING IN SANTA ROSA

A dozen persons, more or less, told the Petray memorial committee, meeting in Santa Rosa Friday afternoon, that their reasons for objecting to the placing of a memorial to Sonoma County’s martyred sheriff, James Petray, on the court house lawn. One person spoke in favor of the proposed site.

The reasons stated by the protestants ranged from the artistic — that the memorial statue would ruin the symmetry of the court house square — to morbid — that it would recall a gruesome incident in the county’s history, the slaying of the sheriff and the subsequent lynching of the men responsible.

The committee, consisting of Judge Emmet Seawell, Dr. Thomas Maclay of Petaluma, and Harold B. Rosenberg of Healdsburg, heard the various remarks, and then announced that the matter would be taken under advisement. Judge Seawell is to prepare a written proposition to be offered to will be given out next week.

According to the local member of the committee, Harold B. Rosenberg, the objectors offered no substitute plan whatever. One speaker stated that a majority of the people of Santa Rosa were in opposition to having the fountain erected on the court house grounds, but, according to Mr. Rosenberg, the committee believes this statement to be far-fetched and not based on fact.

Those who spoke against the location included Carl Bundschu, Dr. J. H. McLeod, Mrs. Chas. H. Kellogg, Dr. F. O. Pryor, J. K. Babcock, representing the men’s Bible class of the Christian church, Mrs. Clara Lemon, Miss Pauline Hahman and Mrs. James Gray.

Miss Ada C. Sweet, who spoke for the court house location, characterized the objections as far-fetched. She praised the monument as a work of art, and eulogized the heroism of the late sheriff as reasons for going ahead with the original plan.

Judge Seawell said in his introductory remarks that he did not believe the morbid viewpoint of the memorial project should be allowed to develop. He intimated that he believed the objections made so far had not disclosed the real reasons why some of the citizens do not want the memorial at the court house. He declared that after many months of work on the memorial during which there was no protest, efforts were being made now to “disrupt the plans by eleventh hour objections.”

Mrs. Clara Lemon suggested that the proper place for the monument is in the Plaza at Healdsburg, and Mr. Rosenberg said that he believed the people of that city would be happy to have it there.

“However,” Mr. Rosenberg said, “I consider this protest, coming late as it does, as untimely and unfortunate. I know that there is no man of Sonoma county who is held In higher regard in Healdsburg than Jim Petray.”

– Healdsburg Tribune, November 30 1922

PETRAY MEMORIAL PLAN RESTS WITH JUSTICE SEAWELL
NOTHING HEARD FROM PLAN, HELD UP BY SANTA ROSA OBJECTORS

The erection of the Petray Memorial, or abandonment of the plan to honor the memory of former Sheriff James A. Petray, who died in performance of the duties for the county, still rests in the hands of Associate Justice Emmet Seawell, chairman of the committee to which was entrusted the placing of the memorial on the lawn of the court house in Santa Rosa.

The base of the memorial group stands on one corner of the lawn of the court house square: the figure is in Santa Rosa ready to be put in place; all money raised for the purpose of erecting a permanent monument to the county officer who was shot dead when he and other officers went to arrest members of the notorious Howard street gang in connection with the San Francisco assault case. But at present nothing is being done, so far as can be learned, to either place the memorial as planned or to give up the project and remove the base already put in place.

…Not until the committee had decided upon the location, had selected the memorial and contracted for its construction. and the base had been put in place, did opposition to the project arise. Then a group arose to make loud and lingering protest against it.

After two hearings, in which the question was aired pro and con, Judge Seawell took the matter under consideration, with the announcement that he would, within a week or two make a decision one way or another. That was some months ago, but since that time nothing has been done and nothing has been heard from the now associate Justice of the State Supreme Court.

Among both groups, the group favorable to the memorial and that which opposes it, the matter seems to have been forgotten. But there are still some who are asking, day after day, what is to be done.

– Healdsburg Tribune, May 24 1923

COMMITTEE AT SECRET MEETING TAKES FINAL ACTION ON MONUMENT; MAY ELIMINATE FIGURE OF JUSTICE

Final decision to complete the Petray Memorial monument on the northeastern corner of the courthouse lawn, but without the figure of justice if that part of the memorial can be eliminated within the available funds, was reached yesterday afternoon at an executive session of the committee, which is composed of Justice Emmet Seawell of the State supreme court, Captain Thomas Maclay of Petaluma, and Harold Rosenberg of Healdsburg. No one attended the meeting but members of the committee and J. W. Dolliver, the designer of the monument. Newspapermen and one or two others present to hear the deliberations were asked to retire before the committee took action. The meeting was held in the afternoon, in a room of the Occidental hotel.

The meeting had been called for 11 o’clock in the morning, but late Thursday afternoon was postponed. However, members of the committee forgot to tell anybody about the postponement, with the result that a group of ten or 12 local clubwomen who have interested themselves in the matter presented themselves at the hotel in the morning, only to be told that the meeting had been postponed.

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED

The women did not appear at the afternoon session. Following is the resolution adopted by the committee after some two and a half hours’ discussion: “Whereas, The placing in the courthouse square of a memorial to the memory of the late James A. Petray, former sheriff of Sonoma county, has been opposed by certain citizens as an inappropriate place therefore; and “Whereas, None of the objections now made were made to this committee or any member thereof until after the material and labor for the construction of said memorial had been contracted for, and its construction partially completed, the cost of which corresponded to the entire amount subscribed for its construction; and Whereas the placing of said memorial has long been delayed with a view to changing the place of its location provided another suitable location should be furnished by those who opposed its location in the courthouse square and Whereas, No location or place has been offered or tendered to this committee by those who opposed the construction of said memorial upon the courthouse square; Now Therefore, it is the sense of this committee that it is its imperative duty, after notice that it would meet on this day, to finally dispose of, and determine said matters; Therefore, said committee now in session, by resolution has passed, instructs its chairman and its architect, J. W. Dolliver, to begin and press to a completion the construction of said memorial originally planned upon the place originally selected; It is further provided, that it the statue of justice which occupies a place in said memorial, and to which certain objections have been made may be eliminated therefrom and the same appropriately completed within the funds subscribed and pledged and for the purpose for which contributions were made, or further in the event said change shall exceed the amount so subscribed, and additional contributions should be made to meet the excess expense necessary to make said change said chairman and architect are authorized to eliminate said figure from the memorial as now designed. The chairman and architect are directed to begin the work of finally completing said memorial at the expiration of ten (10) days from this date and prosecute the same to speedy completion regardless of whether or not the change herein contemplated shall be provided for.”

– Press Democrat, August 25 1923

PETRAY MEMORIAL TO BE DYNAMITED SAY LETTERS RECEIVED BY PETALUMAN

Letters stating that the Petray memorial monument will be dynamited if erected on the court-house lawn were received some time ago by Captain Thomas Maclay of Petaluma, a member of the memorial committee, he revealed here yesterday at the committee meeting, called for final decision on the matter of a site for the monument.

Despite these warnings, the committee decided unanimously to go ahead with the monument as planned, with the provision that if the figure of Justice can be eliminated within the funds available or subscribed within the next ten days this change will be made.

Captain Maclay declared that he had received several intimations that the monument will be destroyed. Other members of the committee also said they had received criticisms of the proposed monument, but none which went as far us to threaten radical measures.

All members of the committee spoke of the fact that in the year elapsed since the last public meeting there had been no constructive suggestions on the part of those opposed to the placing of the monument on the court-house grounds, although their leaders had been communicated with repeatedly.

“Some people see the viciousness and sordidness in things, but never the ideals or the other beautiful phases,” Judge Seaweil said. “I would not for anything wound the feelings of people among whom I have lived most of my life, but after this matter was decided upon and the work started a few people worked themselves up to hysteria, and I cannot but believe they adopted the wrong mental viewpoint.

The women of the State were up in arms over the gangster outrages which preceded Sheriff Petray’s death, and at the time he was shot it was recognized that he lost his life at the hands of men who had attacked that which womenkind holds highest, virtue. Then, after the work was contracted for and started a few of our citizens saw red and raised vociferous objection, but to my knowledge they have never come forward with a suggestion for solving the problem.”

Walter H. Nagle, the only one at the meeting except committeemen and newspapermen, reported that one of the objectors had agreed to raise $500 to pay the [cost] of taking the monument away altogether, but committee members declared that this would not reimburse those who had contributed toward the monument.

Mr. Dolliver said that owing to the delay in constructing the monument some of the cement and other materials had become worthless, so that it will now cost more to complete the memorial than it would have at first. I. F. Lippo, the contractor, is to receive a second $500 payment immediately, and the balance of his contract will be paid upon completion of the work. This second payment will bring the amount expended from the committee funds up to $1500, and will leave $1,047.45 for other expenses.

– Press Democrat, August 25 1923

BELIEVE WORK WILL START ON PETRAY MEMORIAL REST BENCH HERE NEXT TUESDAY

According to the terms of the resolution passed at the meeting here a week ago by the Petray Memorial Committee the 10 days allowed by the committee men for the subscribing of a fund to remove the statue from the monument at the corner of the courthouse lawn will be up Monday and it is believed work on the erection of the rest bench will start the folowing Tuesday or at some date very soon thereafter.

Word was received from Judge Seawell chairman of the committee this morning that he has heard nothing from the objectors since the posing of the resolution and although it is not definitely known it is generally believed that the contingent “knocking” the memorial has not succeeded in raising the necessary fund for the alterations.

An anonymous circular letter containing a copy of a letter sent by Judge Seawell to Carl Bundschu regarding the proposed change of the statue for ornamental designs marked “Special and Confidential” has been broadcasted recently in an effort to raise the $500 stated in Judge Seawell’s letter as necessary to omit the figure of Justice.

A footnote to this letter reads as follows, “The Festival Week showed it (the memorial foundation) was an ideal location for a rest room and information booth. Those and the ice water privileges would be worth a great deal to people in the city residents and visitors.”

– Santa Rosa Republican, September 1 1923

The Tribune is glad to see that the opposition to the Petray Memorial in the courthouse lawn in Santa Rosa, has simmered down to one or two individuals and that the fountain will be erected as planned. We hardly thought that the opposition amounted to anything, despite the frantic efforts of the Santa Rosa morning newspaper some time ago to create the impression that the whole city was rising up in protest.

– Healdsburg Tribune, September 6 1923

PETRAY MEMORIAL WORK IS STARTED-ORIGINAL PLAN, INCLUDING STATUE, IS USED.

– Santa Rosa Republican, September 13 1923

SHOW FUNDS TO BE USED TO REBUILD PETRAY MEMORIAL

The proceeds of the midnight frolic held tonight at the California theater is dedicated to Sheriff James A. Petray will be turned over to the 20-30 Club to be used in remodeling the Petray memorial on the courthouse lawn – a lasting tribute to the memory of a county officer who died in performance of his duty.

Authority was given the Santa Rosa 20-30 Club at a recent meeting of the Sonoma county board of supervisors to remove the figure of Justice, central piece of the stone memorial, and to replace it with a bronze plaque, set in a concrete background of approximately the same height as the figure. Concrete benches will be placed against the stone wall that forms a half circle facing the northeast corner of Fourth street and Hinton Avenue and the whole will be colored to match the original stone.

In addition to the alterations in design, the memorial under the 20-30 Club’s plan, will when remodeled explain what the memorial is for. There is nothing on the memorial now to explain that it is dedicated to the memory of an officer who was slain in pursuance of his duty.

The plaque to be placed by the club will tell that the monument Petray, give the dates of his birth and death, and conclude, “His was a sacrifice of life for law, liberty and home.”

William Herbert, local architect, has given the memorial considerable attention and study, with the result that a design was worked out by him which will be followed by the Club in their remodeling work.

The re-building of the Petray Memorial has been one of the major programs of the local club, and while the organization has been considering the plans for some time, no definite announcement was made until every detail had been planned.

Associate Justice Emmet Sewell of the supreme court, Thomas Maclay, Pelaluma capitalist, and Harold Rosenberg, Healdsburg merchant, who composed the original memorial committee were first consulted before the plans were announced. Each of these men have endorsed the proposed change.

– Press Democrat, March 5 1932

PETRAY MEMORIAL PROJECT STARTED

“The Concrete Lady” which for several years has been the central feature of the Sheriff Petray memorial on the northeast lawn of the courthouse was removed today by William Brown, preparatory to remodeling the memorial as a project of Santa Rosa Twenty-Thirty Club…The contract was let some months ago to Brown who will install the plaque which was cast at a foundry here. Concrete work to match the stonework of the memorial base will support the plaque and will form two ornamental benches on either side of the bronze…

– Santa Rosa Republican June 21 1932

Read More

dumpingsign1

THE REDEMPTION OF SANTA ROSA CREEK

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Note to Santa Rosa: When things are so bad that you’re on the opposite side from the Women’s Auxiliary, you might want to rethink your position.

It was 1923 and the smell of tort was in the air – among other things. Pressure was coming from neighborhood groups, which were either threatening suits against the city or demanding Santa Rosa sue its worst polluter. The state Board of Health was sending threatening letters to city hall because nothing was being done to fix serious violations of public health laws. And then there was the lawsuit filed early that year by a man who charged the city was responsible for his young daughters being sickened with typhoid and diphtheria.

What all of these complaints had in common was that they involved Santa Rosa Creek in some way – either something bad was being intentionally dumped into it or the city’s inadequate sewer farm was overflowing and flooding the adjacent creek with raw waste.

None of these were new problems. Complaints to the City Council about the abuse of Santa Rosa Creek dated back over thirty years, to 1891. Ordinances against pollution were passed but not enforced and court orders were ignored – as for the sewer farm contaminating the creek, the city was violating a perpetual restraining order going back to 1896.

Last month (Feb. 2021) I was part of a Historical Society of Santa Rosa webinar about Santa Rosa Creek. My portion, “The Stink of Santa Rosa Creek,” which begins in the video at the 32:00 mark, covers much of the history of pollution in the decades around the turn of the century, but I did not have time to discuss the pivotal year of 1923, when prospects greatly improved. This article is a companion to that presentation and wraps up the story.

Before we wade into that muck, however, first the fun stuff: Lake Santa Rosa, take III.

In early 1923, the Chamber of Commerce hosted a luncheon for an expert in urban planning and development to tell them how to best turn its city-owned property north of town – now the Junior College campus – into what was intended to become the “Luther Burbank Creation Garden.”* Seemingly to their surprise, his focus was instead on beautifying Santa Rosa Creek.

Thus inspired, come that spring Ward W. Von Tillow, head of the Chamber’s “Clean Up committee,” announced plans to restore several miles of the creek to its natural state. But the committee wasn’t going to stop there; they would build dams to create “ole’ swimmin’ holes” for the town’s youth. They also wanted to ask property owners along the creek to give away their strips of land immediately adjacent to the creek so “walkways, tennis courts, bath and boat houses can be built.” In short, they wanted to turn the creek into a full-blown waterpark.

This proposal probably led many in town to wistfully recall that about a dozen years earlier there was a short-lived effort to dam the creek to create “Lake Santa Rosa.” That plan was sabotaged both by upstream pollution and an obstinate landowner who maintained his property line extended fully into the middle of the creek. (Legally true, but meaningless in practice.) And even before that there was a proposed 1906 waterpark that included a bandstand, but that design was quickly forgotten after the Great Earthquake struck.

The 1923 ambitions likewise went nowhere. The creek revitalization by the committee was not mentioned again, as they turned to their routine springtime duties in getting the town “dolled up” for the upcoming Rose Festival. Homeowners were asked to sign a pledge to make their house and yard as presentable as possible, while volunteer crews and Boy Scouts picked up trash in alleyways and vacant lots, painted old fences and such.

Perhaps the Clean Up committee was so distracted by its pre-festival chores that it plumb forgot about creating a waterpark with “ole’ swimmin’ holes,” but it’s more likely they were discouraged by the outcome of a meeting that happened on exactly the same day. City Manager Abner Hitchcock held a summit between city leaders, the Women’s Auxiliary and the Chamber of Commerce directors. The topic: What to do about the public nuisance caused by the Levin Tannery.

There were then three tanneries in Santa Rosa (see “TANNERY TOWN“) and the largest was the Levin Tannery, which was at the current location of 101 Brookwood Ave. extending all the way to the creek – larger than a typical square city block.

Pity anyone who lived downwind of that place; the stench was offal (sorry, old pun). The tannery also dumped the untreated refuse of its tanning vats into the creek and the concentrations of lime and other highly toxic agents, including cyanide, quickly killed what few fish still ventured into the waters. Complaints about these problems dated back many years and were ignored until the new threat of lawsuits against Santa Rosa itself brought City Manager Hitchcock to call the meeting. Still, he included the proposed waterpark as an agenda item: “Beautiful parks, roses, swimming pools, wistaria vines and tannery dumps do not mix,” he conceded.

Predictably, nothing came from the meeting except for an agreement to meet again at some point to discuss zoning. (Probably meaning they wanted to rezone that entire section of town as industrial, making it easier for the city to justify ignoring odor complaints from nearby residents.)

The Levin Tannery got away with being the town’s worst water and air polluter because it was also its largest employer. Yes, the tannery discharges into the creek were illegal and yes, the company was sued over that as well as the smells. Each time the tannery promised to be a better citizen but did nothing, and the city let them get by with it out of fear they would take their hefty payroll to Petaluma or somewhere else.

It’s worth taking a moment to reflect on Santa Rosa’s remarkable degree of cognitive dissonance in that era. On one hand the town and its Chamber heavily leaned into PR that this was Luther Burbank’s garden paradise and the lovely city of roses, hoping to attract visitors and new residents. But at the same time, they were aiding and abetting the tannery in its ongoing destruction of the creek and its blanketing the town’s air with stomach-turning smells.

The State Board of Health had no interest in coddling the tannery’s illegal dumping, however, and sent Santa Rosa a blistering letter charging that pollution of the creek was “beyond any that exists anywhere else in the state,” and if the city didn’t take immediate action the Board would file injunctions against the polluters itself.

(A little Believe-it-or-Not! sidenote: The waterpark plan announcement, the summit meeting over the tannery smell and the arrival of the letter all took place during a single week in early April.)

As the Press Democrat noted at the time, the town had to prevent at all costs the state from taking action against the polluting industries, as “it would mean the losing of these plants to Santa Rosa, since they could not dispose of their own sewage and compete with competing plants more favorably situated.”

Santa Rosa was now faced with promptly solving a crisis thirty years in the making. Naturally, the city did what it’s always done: It hired an out-of-town consultant – and then mostly ignored his advice.

Sewage disposal cartoon ("the blot on the fair city of Santa Rosa") by city engineers Frank Comstock and Paul Green. Press Democrat, February 9, 1924
Sewage disposal cartoon (“the blot on the fair city of Santa Rosa”) by city engineers Frank Comstock and Paul Green. Press Democrat, February 9, 1924

As I emphasized in my presentation, almost all of the creek’s problems were linked to the town not having an adequate sewer system until 1925.

Santa Rosa Creek was an open sewer until the first city sewer main was built in 1886, with “numerous” privately owned redwood sewers dumping raw sewage into the creek from downtown hotels and other large businesses. Some of those private lines were still in use until 1902, when they were banned by the city. (Aside from sources transcribed below or found in related articles on the creek, most of this older research comes from “The Sewage of Santa Rosa” by John Cummings.)

That first city sewer poured into the creek just west of Railroad Square (it’s always polite to welcome visitors with something fragrant) until 1890, when a sewer line was extended out to the newly constructed sewer farm, about where the Stony Circle business park is today. It was purposely built next to the creek so any overflow from the evaporation ponds or other parts of the system would spill into there along with the semi-filtered wastewater gushing from the outflow pipes.

The sewer mains were undersized from the start and upgrades always seemed to be about ten years behind current needs. Around the turn of the century, every winter Second and Fifth streets backed up with sewage seeping out of manholes during storms.

Being perpetually at full capacity (or beyond), for years Santa Rosa limited which businesses or industries could hook up to the sewer. The city allowed only one laundry to connect and even that sometimes overtaxed the sewer main on Second. The other laundries presumably just discharged their soapy alkaline water into the creek, although they were supposed to be using large cesspools.

The Levin Tannery never used the sewer system but the city’s other major creek polluter, the cannery, finally connected in 1925. Before then the sewer farm could not have possibly handled its waste, which was about 100,000 gallons per day during peak canning season. California Packing Company’s Plant No. 5 on West Third Street (survived by that big brick wall just past Railroad Square) also created a terrible stink in the west end of town due to its enormous garbage heaps of food waste allowed to rot along the banks of the creek.

C. G. Gillespie, director of the bureau of sanitary engineering of the State Board of Health wasn’t threatening action over Santa Rosa’s inadequate sewer lines in 1923, however. Besides the cannery and Levin dumping waste into the creek near downtown, the object of his fury was the sewer farm, where he wrote in his letter there were “utterly intolerable conditions.”

That was because in 1895 the sewer farm moved its wastewater outflow pipes farther west. As a result, several farms downstream were flooded that winter. The city paid damages but Mrs. M. A. Peterson took the city to court and won a perpetual restraining order, “prohibiting the city or its officers, agents and employees from polluting or poisoning the waters of Santa Rosa creek by discharging any sewage, garbage, filth or refuse matter in the creek from the sewer farm.”

Come 1923 and her son, Elmer, sued Santa Rosa for $12,000 damages (about $183k today) to cover medical expenses for his daughters allegedly having contracted typhoid and diphtheria because of the contaminated creek water. Another case at the same time which was apparently settled quietly had a Laguna farmer claiming creek water had killed thirteen of his cattle.

Unbelievably, it seems that the city actually stepped up the volume of discharges as the Peterson case awaited court hearings. The Petersons claimed that the sewer farm discharges were now continuous, and the judge ruled for the city to be held in contempt of court.

And despite further nastygrams from Director Gillespie (“conditions are getting more unbearable than ever before”) the city still did nothing about the dumping situation. Finally in November the state Board of Health dropped the hammer on Santa Rosa and declared the pollution of Santa Rosa Creek a “serious public nuisance and menace to health” and the city in violation of the Public Health Act.

The deadline for the city to fix everything was Jan. 1, 1925 – about thirteen months away.

"Before and After" cartoon by city engineers Frank Comstock and Paul Green. Press Democrat, February 8, 1924
“Before and After” cartoon by city engineers Frank Comstock and Paul Green. Press Democrat, February 8, 1924

The city moved quickly to schedule a special election for February 1924, asking voters to approve $165,000 in bonds to build a new sewer plant. It passed easily, with about 83% approval.

Director Gillespie followed that immediately with a letter to City Council. His message: The state doesn’t trust you to do the right thing.

“I am convinced that the seriousness of the sewer farm conditions is not generally realized in Santa Rosa,” he wrote. “…We must compel your attention to your own shortcomings in this particular, and look to you for an energetic and business-like solution of the utterly intolerable conditions which have been perpetrated too long.” He closed with another swipe that “the city pollutes Santa Rosa creek to an extent beyond any that exists anywhere in California.”

And surprise, surprise, surprise: Gillespie was right. We did screw it up.

Right after the sewage plant bonds were sold there was a big turnover in Santa Rosa’s government. Three new councilmen were elected (one of them also being named as the new mayor) and the city manager and city attorney resigned. Ideas which were considered and rejected a year earlier – such as “sewering to the sea” – were reconsidered. Doubts were raised over whether an entirely new plant was needed or the existing one just could be improved.

What the city then did could be considered underhanded: They sent the Board of Health plans for a modern sewage plant the city never intended to build. Instead they just added a couple of new wooden septic tanks and six more ponds to increase capacity.

Gillespie was spitting mad. He condemned “the inadequacy and futility of the makeshift efforts vou have been attempting at the sewer farm this past summer” and continued:

…Your accomplishments and prospects of abating this nuisance are wholly unsatisfactory to us and an imposition upon the right of others in that vicinity. We expect you to forthwith carry through the program for building a real sewage plant as proposed by those in authority in Santa Rosa last spring and for which bonds were duly voted.

Clearly the city was playing a game of chicken with the state, betting that Gillespie would back off as long as they showed progress was being made. The sewer farm began chlorinating wastewater before it was discharged. The Levin Tannery stopped dumping into the creek – it’s unknown what they began doing with their toxic waste, or why they couldn’t have started doing that decades earlier – and the cannery installed a grinder to chop up peelings enough to wash them down the drain.

The showdown came after the January 1925 deadline. The state sent a chemist to take a sample from the creek while two local chemists did the same. The state report found the water still highly dangerous; the Santa Rosa boys pronounced the samples free from contamination.

The Peterson family wrote to Gillespie asking if the water flowing through their property was now safe. He replied that “…Santa Rosa Creek is considerably polluted by this sewage. It is dangerous above the farm, fully 100 times more dangerous below and about 50 times more dangerous at your place, than above the farm.”

As for the Peterson lawsuit, it was decided in February 1924, about the same time that voters approved the sewer farm bond. He won the decision, but Judge Preston from Mendocino county dismissed damages related to the medical care for Elmer’s two daughters because the municipal corporation was not responsible since there was no “willful violation.” (I’ll pause here for Gentle Reader to scream in outrage.) But hey, the judge said Elmer could still sue city employees personally for negligence. He refiled his case to get a jury trial, but died of a heart attack before it came to court.

Santa Rosa’s wastewater finally met the state’s minimum standards, although it took until September 1926. But although the worst was over, the creek was still far from recovery. During the dry months Santa Rosa Creek near downtown was considered a fire hazard because of all the everyday rubbish still being dumped into the creek bed and upon its banks. (The fire dept. was called to put out such a fire in the summer of 1924.)

Also, the sheriff’s department apparently believed it was exempt from state pollution laws. That was the era of Prohibition and the cops were seizing enormous quantities of hootch, which they poured directly into the creek downstream from the sewer farm. In November 1926 alone, they dumped 1,730 gallons, mostly hard liquor including over a thousand gallons of jackass brandy. There were also 600 bottles of beer and the county detective and deputies  “practiced up on their shooting until broken glass, foam and odor was all that remained.”


*  Despite its name, the “Luther Burbank Creation Garden” had very little to do with Burbank, aside from a promise he would contribute some plants. It was really the latest installment in the perennial melodrama over Santa Rosa’s efforts to create its first public park, this time with the good juju of Burbank’s famous name and intentions that it would someday include a community auditorium, another benefit the town lacked. Nothing much came of it (although they passed the hat at events for years, seeking donations) and the property was sold in 1930 to become the basis of the new Junior College campus.

 

sources

PARK COMMITTEE TO ENTERTAIN AT DINNER

Luther Burbank, Santa Rosa’s plant wizard, and Dr. Carol Aronovici, city planning expert of Berkeley, and a member of the University of California extension bureau, will be guests of the Luther Burbank Park committee of the chamber of commerce at a dinner to be served this evening in Edward’s Restaurant…

…Dr. Aronovici is noted throughout the States and nation as a leading beautification consultant. He has published numerous books dealing with the question and is a most interesting talker. Maps showing how Santa Rosa can be cleaned up and beautified and how Santa Rosa creek may be made into one of the beauty spots of the city will be exhibited.

– Press Democrat, January 25, 1923

 

 

Santa Rosa Revives Interest in City Beautification; New Plans Are on Foot

IS “Santa Rosa guilty of indecent exposure of its civic mind?” Go down and look into Santa Rosa creek before you answer that question. Go over to the old College grounds for an expose.

The beautification committee of the auxiliary has answered that question. It has called in an expert for consultation over the ruins that litter our highways and fill our creek beds. Under the aggressive determination of Mrs. Gray that committee will eventually cause beauty to flourish where tin cans now hold sway. Through their splendid co-operation the creek will some day wind through verdant banks.

The conference with Dr. Aronovici is crystalizing the plans that have been formulating during the past year. Gathered about the luncheon table Thursday, the women of the beautification committee discussed their troubles, unfolded their hopes and plans and were inspired anew by this expert’s advice.

But does the community generally want its civic mind to improve? Will it see that its own dooryard reflects only the peace of order and beauty? Shall Santa Rosa’s arteries to the rural districts run clean and healthy. Do you think it pays to be beautiful?

– Santa Rosa Republican, January 27, 1923

 

 

$12,000 Claim Against City Alleges Breaking Of 27-Year Injunction

Alleging that the city has violated an injunction granted his mother twenty-seven years ago by permitting polluted water to flow from the sewer farm into Santa Rosa creek, Elmer Peterson, who lives near the sewer farm and through whose property the creek runs, has filed a $12,000 claim for damages against the municipality.

Peterson, acting through Attorneys W. F. Cowan and J. Rollo Leppo, contends that his two children have had typhoid fever and diphtheria because of the city’s alleged failure to obey the injunction.

It was also reported Thursday that people living along the Russian river, particularly at some of the resorts, plan to take action through the State board of health to enforce observance of the injunction.

Those who are protesting the present situation say that sewage has been diverted from the septic tanks at the sewer farm into the creek, whence it flows into the laguna and then into the Russian river near Mirabel park.

REPORT CATTLE DEAD

One farmer in the laguna district is said to have reported that thirteen of his cattle had died from disease contracted through drinking the creek water.

[..]

– Press Democrat, February 9 1923

 

 

CONFERENCE ON TANNERY ODORS IS CALLED HERE
City Manager Asks Discussion as Result of Complaints Reaching His Office; Matter to Come Up Monday.

City Manager Abner E. Hitchcock on Wednesday took official cognizance of complaints which have reached his office about alleged offensive odors from the local tanneries.

In a statement issued by the city manager the chamber of commerce and the woman’s auxiliary are incited tn discuss the problem in an effort to find a solution to the problem.

As result of this communication the directors of the chamber and the executive committee of the auxiliary will take up the matter at a joint supper meeting to be held Monday evening.

City Manager Hitchcock’s statement of the situation follows:

Complaints are coming to the office of the city manager accusing these industrial concerns of being the source of some very obnoxious conditions, which interfere with the comfort and health of the homes situated in the vicinity of the plants.

Upon Inquiry I learn that these plants have been the cause of much contention at different times during a long period of years.

The offensive conditions have been complained of on the one hand by those who suffer by being near-residents about the plants. And the plants have been permitted to remain on the other hand by the business enterprise of the city by reason of the large pay-roll maintained and the substantial output from the business. As the city represents all classes, this subject must be taken up from the various angles.

The city manager therefore submits the problem as a referendum to these two bodies, viz:

The Chamber of commerce, representing the business enterprises of the city.

The Women’s Auxiliary, representing the welfare of the homes.

In order to receive, if possible, suggestions as to what should be the wise attitude to assume.

– Press Democrat, March 29 1923

 

 

Committee Plans Natural Park in Santa Rosa Creek

A natural park, several miles long, running clear through Santa Rosa, is the dream for the future of the Clean Up committee of the chamber of commerce, headed by Ward W. Von Tillow, well known Santa Rosa booster.

Von Tillow states that the Clean Up committee, which was voted permanent at a recent meeting, will center all activity in the near future on cleaning up and beautifying Santa Rosa creek, which, with a very little expense and effort, can be made one of the most beautiful streams in the state, but which, at present, is said to be one of the most unsanitary carriers of disease in the state, thanks to the various factories that are said to be using the stream as a garbage dump.

“The Clean Up committee has taken hold,” said Von Tillow this morning, “and we’re like a flock of bull dogs, we won’t let go until our aim is accomplished.”

The committee has as its aim the cleaning up of the entire creek, the finding of new methods of disposing of the scrap leather and tannin from the tanneries here, the cleaning out of all underbrush that is at present growing in the course of the stream, and the building of a series of dams in the creek so that a series of “ole’ swimmin’ holes” can be had for the youth of the city.

It is planned to approach the property owners all along the creek and try to get them to either donate or sell their rights to the creek to the city, so that the dream of the committee can be accomplished.

Property owners all along the creek own to the creek center and this property is not used by one out of 40 of the land owners, since it cannot be turned to any use as the creek now stands. The committee members hope to prevail upon the land holders to give their right up to the stream, in some instances including strips of land running back from the banks where walkways, tennis courts, bath and boat houses can be built. In a great many instances the city may buy large lots on the creek banks for picnic grounds, etc.

“The full intent of this aim of the committee,” stated Chairman Von Tillow this morning, “will give to Santa Rosa what no other city has.” He went on to state how his natural park will be the means of holding hundreds of tourists here each season, who otherwise will go on north to the river resorts or to the springs. This will mean much in revenue to the merchants of the city, it was stated, “and besides,” continued Von Tillow, “the cleaning up of the creek will greatly improver property values of the city.”

A joint meeting of the chamber of commerce directors, women’s auxiliary, the mayor and city manager will be held in the chamber of commerce office this evening to discuss the co-ordination of the program of work of the chamber of commerce and to take some action on the tanneries, which are said to be polluting the waters of Santa Rosa creek.

– Santa Rosa Republican, April 2 1923

 

 

Commerce Board Takes No Action On Tannery Dumps

The board of directors of the local chamber of commerce failed to take any action on the tannery matter after the subject had been given considerable discussion at the joint meeting of the board of directors, the woman’s auxiliary the mayor and city manager last night in Edward’s restaurant.

Manager Hitchcock told of a great many complaints he had received from residents in the vicinity of the tanneries and told how the water of Santa Rosa creek becomes discolored each season from the scraps of hide and seepage from the tanning tanks on the banks of the creek.

The matter was taken up before the chamber of commerce directors at the request of City Manager Hitchcock in the hope that that body could assist in getting the tanneries to find some other method of disposing of their waste.

It has been stated that unless the tanneries comply with the sanitary requirements the city will bring action against them. Several individuals residing near the tanneries have suggested suits against the tanneries to declare them public nuisances on account of the offensive odors and the unsanitary condition of the creeks.

The major part of the meeting last evening was taken up with a discussion of the aims of the clean-up committee in making a public park out of Santa Rosa creek. To do this the committee must first clean up the creek, it was pointed out and this to a great extent means cleaning up the tannery dumps.

“Beautiful parks, roses, swimming pools, wistaria vines and tannery dumps do not mix” stated Manager Hitchcock.

The necessity for immediate action for the protection of the city’s future as a residence center as well as preserving the permanent industrial locations. The only agreement reached at the meeting was when both boards favored city zoning. A conference will be held on this subject in the near future to take up the matter further. Those at the meeting were:

[..]

– Santa Rosa Republican, April 3 1923

 

 

COUNCIL ACTS TO GET EXPERT SEWER REPORT
Complete Remedying of Disposal Plant Foreseen Following Receipt of Hot Letter From State Board of Health.

As the result of a communication from the state board of health virtually delivering an ultimatum to the city over the condition of the sewage disposal system, the city council last night voted to bring Clyde Smith, of Berkeley, an expert, here to study the situation and make recommendations for a complete remedy.

The expert’s services will cost the city $25 a day and expenses.

The letter, signed by C. G. Gillespie, director of the bureau of sanitary engineering of the State Board of Health, declared that the “utterly intolerable conditions” at the local disposal plant have been “perpetuated too long,” and it accuses the city of never having done one thing in all its existence toward keeping pace in sewage disposal systems. There are no extenuating circumstances here as there are in some other cities, the letter adds.

MUST CLEAN CREEK

The state board declares further that the Santa Rosa creek must be cleaned, and the sewage from tanneries and canneries taken care of and that should the city renounce this obligation these industries will also have to be enjoined, with the probability that it would mean the losing of these plants to Santa Rosa, since they could not dispose of their own sewage and compete with competing plants more favorably situated.

The city pollutes the creek “beyond any that exists anywhere else in the state,” the letter charges.

A suggestion for running a sewer line to the ocean is characterized as fanciful and impractical, while the suggestion to extend the disposal system to the laguna is described as having some advantages, but as not necessary. The plan for building a flume to the upper end of the sewer farm is approved only as a temporary measure.

SUGGEST BOND ISSUE

The state board suggests that a bond issue for a new disposal system be submitted to the people and that if it fails to pass that the work be done by assessment under Improvement Act Proceedings.

After declaring that the seriousness of the situation evidently is not realized in Santa Rosa, the letter concludes with this:

“This communication puts on record the stand and opinions of this board. The problem is, so far as we are concerned, squarely up to you.”

– Press Democrat, April 11 1923

 

 

Tannery Odor Drive Is Made by Owners

The Santa Rosa-Vallejo Tanning Company is doing everything in its power to make its place of business sanitary to do away with all obnoxious odors and to prevent any deleterious matter going into the waters of Santa Rosa creek. This is vouchsafed by the sanitary inspector who has been overlooking the manufacturing plants of this city.

[..]

– Santa Rosa Republican, April 16 1923

 

 

Injunction Sought To Save Land From Damage By Creek

Suit for a restraining order to prevent J. J. Flynn, E. H. Crawford and Milton Wasserman from dumping more refuse in Santa Rosa creek was started in the superior court Saturday by Charles B. Kobes against the firm. Kobes, through his attorney Harry T. Kyle claims that his land will be damaged in high water by the refuse and earth thrown by the firm in building their new garage in First street through the diversion of the channel causing the water to tear out part of Kobes’ land…

– Santa Rosa Republican, July 16 1923

 

 

Tannery Owner Held For Polluting Stream

A complaint charging Nate Levin, owner of the Hermann Tannery in West Sixth street, with pollution of the Santa Rosa creek was filed in the police court here, Thursday by City Sanitary Inspector E. J. Helgrin. Levin is charged with maintaining a nuisance by pouring refuse from the tannery into the stream. The case was brought before Judge Collins. Levin has been released pending hearing of the case.

– Press Democrat, September 7 1923

 

 

WHY IS A TANNERY?

Dear Press Democrat:

Why is a tannery? Or, rather, three of them? When I first came to live on (pardon me in) Santa Rosa avenue, I boasted, unfortunately neglecting to knock on wood, that here at least was one part of our dear city not affected by tannery odors. But alas! Times have changed, or perhaps it is only the direction of the wind.

Borne on gentle zephyrs, toward the wee sma’ hours of morning, when all prudent people, and many others, are getting their very best slumber, comes a horribly insistent, unpleasant and penetrating odor, creeping through our homes, and gradually into our senses, till we waken, startled. (And they say the sense of smell is the hardest to arouse!)

Not having been reared to regard the night air as poisonous, my first thought is that perhaps some usually kind and considerate neighbor is nursing a grouch and burning the bones, remaining from Fido’s lunch of yesterday. But no. that could never, never be, not at the hour of 4:30 a. m.

Tannery smells may not be actually unhealthful, but dear me. how can one feel really fit and ready to face a busy day with happy smiles and a sweet disposition, minus one’s usual nine hours of pleasant slumber?

I suppose in time the problem of tanneries will be met and properly disposed of, for I have a wholesome respect for our city dads, C. of C. and all busy boosters and progressives. But God speed the day!

In the meantime let’s all lay in a supply of insense [sic]. Then on retiring at night, place it conveniently at hand, and if the occasion arises (and I admit it some times doesn’t) we are fully prepared with a counter-irritant, as it were, and can soon drift back to pleasant dreams, telling our sub-conscious that day by day – well, anyway, Santa Rosa is growing better and better.

Very truly, MRS. JAY. E. BOWER. [Amy Bower – Ed.]

– Press Democrat, October 19 1923

 

 

CITY FATHERS FACE CITATION IN SEWAGE CASE

Judge Rolfe L. Thompson issued a citation Thursday directing Mayor L. A. Pressley, the six members of the city council, City Manager Abner E. Hitchcock and City Manager [sic – City Engineer] G. F. Comstock to appear before him December 7, and show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court in violating the perpetual restraining order issued to Mrs. M. A. Peterson May 14, 1896, prohibiting the city or its officers, agents and employees from polluting or poisoning the waters of Santa Rosa creek by discharging any sewage, garbage, filth or refuse matter in the creek from the sewer farm.

The order was issued on affidavit of John L. Peterson, successor to the interests of Mrs. Peterson, who alleges that since April 18, 1922, the city of Santa Rosa and its officers, agents and employees as named have discharged and caused to be discharged, large quantities of sewage, garbage, filth and refuse matter into Santa Rosa creek from the city sewer system and sewer farm. It is also alleged that this discharge of sewage has been continuous since September 4, 1923, in direct violation of the restraining order.

[..]

– Press Democrat, November 23 1923

 

 

COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY BACKS MUCH NEEDED SEWER DISPOSAL PLANT

…Taking up the letter first it will be of interest to again publish an extract of what Mr. Gillespie says in making his demand for action on the city council. The letter in part says:

“I am convinced that the seriousness of the sewer farm conditions is not generally realized in Santa Rosa. Because the legislature has intrusted to this board the protection of streams against willful and unnecessary pollution and the disposal of sewage. In a reasonably inoffensive manner, we must compel your attention to your own short comings in this particular, and look to you for an energetic and business like solution of the utterly intolerable conditions which have been perpetrated too long.

“The city of Santa Rosa cannot be given credit for having done in all its existence one single serviceable thing toward keeping pace in its sewage disposal. You must realize that cities the country over are evolving new and better means of getting rid of their sewage, such that the laws of decency and health are better served.

“In your own case selection must rest between these two types of works, the Imhoof tank with sprinkling beds and the activated sludge system. Anything less is purely a makeshift and will not be acceptable to this board.

“Surrounding tbe farm, due to the intense growth of the vicinity you have created an obnoxious and abatable public nuisance. At other seasons, the city pollutes Santa Rosa creek to an extent beyond any that exists anywhere in California.

“There are still some regrettable violations of the law in sewage disposal in the state, but they are rapidly being corrected, usually by pressure within the community.”

– Press Democrat, February 9 1924

Read More

goldengateFB

IF YOU BRIDGE IT THEY WILL COME

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Imagine if the Golden Gate Bridge was never built – engineering issues couldn’t be solved, perhaps, or maybe there were insurmountable economic hurdles, or just not enough political will. What would Sonoma County be like today?

The only way to get here from San Francisco is by ferry, for starters, so Santa Rosa is a much smaller place. There was no population boom after World War Two; it’s a rural county seat somewhat like Ukiah, and the courthouse is still in Courthouse Square because they patched up the mostly cosmetic damage from the 1957 earthquake instead of tearing it down. Stony Point Road is the Highway 101 bypass, its two lanes swelling to three at the stoplights where there is cross traffic and turn lanes. Tourists clog the Redwood Highway on weekends because the winery events, resorts, spas and casinos in the countryside make this a popular getaway destination for the rest of the Bay Area, while the weekly Press Democrat is always pushing for year-round motocross and horse racing at the fairgrounds in order to draw visitors downtown. “Sonoma County? Sure, it’s a nice place to visit, but no, I…”

Building the bridge was never a sure thing, but it wasn’t because there was formidable opposition. Yes, there were efforts to slow or stop the project but it wasn’t ongoing, popping up only when the project neared a funding or construction milestone. None of those challenges posed serious threats, but were more like pesky nuisances.

Yet when the project launched in 1923 it seemed delusional to believe it would ever pass beyond the blueprint stage. Not only were there some engineers who thought it was folly to attempt constructing the longest bridge of its kind at that particular place, but its promoters had to run an incredibly complex political gauntlet, convincing Washington and Sacramento to back it enthusiastically – all before doing the basic studies which would prove the concept was viable. And even after construction began in January 1933, a retired geologist made a splash by predicting the south end could never be made stable, requiring months of further testing to prove him wrong.

All in all, it took almost 20 years to get to ribbon-cutting day. This is not the place to tell that whole story; the Golden Gate Bridge District has history pages for further details on the critical years of 1928 and 1930 (although some of the information on bridge opponents is wrong). A version of the original 1916 article proposing the idea is transcribed below.

The original 1922 design for the Golden Gate Bridge by architect Joseph B. Strauss, who said it could be built for $17,250,000 and opened by 1927. The final cost was almost exactly twice as much and took until 1937 to complete. Most of the credit for the appearance we know today goes to Charles Ellis, who was the prime designer of the bridge 1929-1931
The original 1922 design for the Golden Gate Bridge by architect Joseph B. Strauss, who said it could be built for $17,250,000 and opened by 1927. The final cost was almost exactly twice as much and took until 1937 to complete. Most of the credit for the appearance we know today goes to Charles Ellis, who was the prime designer of the bridge 1929-1931

Local folks probably know that the key part of the origin story concerns doings in Sonoma County by two men: Frank Doyle, president of the Exchange Bank as well as the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce, and Press Democrat editor/publisher Ernest Finley. Although Doyle modestly said he was “just one of the hundreds who helped to put the bridge over,” he always will be remembered for kicking the project off by organizing the January 13, 1923 conference in Santa Rosa which brought together over 250 bankers, business leaders and politicians, which earned him his spot standing next to the governor and the mayor of San Francisco when the bridge was officially opened. Finley was the indefatigable champion for the cause, turning the Press Democrat into a soapbox for promoting funding and construction, cheering every nugget of good news and booing every bit of bad.

After Finley’s death in 1942, however, the story shifted; it was said the newspaper suffered by losing subscribers because of its bridge advocacy and Finley was a warrior editor battling powerful railroad, logging and farm special interests opposed to the bridge. This version has taken root over the years in the PD and elsewhere; here’s the version from the Media Museum of Northern California: “…In this particular crusade, which spanned at least two decades, Finley stood almost alone…he was opposed by nearly everyone. His business suffered as he lost advertising accounts and subscriptions. But he continued the campaign, insisting, ‘Damn the circulation! The bridge must be built!’” That’s now his legacy quote although it’s probably apocryphal.1

The problem with that narrative is it’s not really true.

The only special interest actually fighting bridge construction was (surprise!) the ferry companies, which were controlled by Southern Pacific – their astroturf citizen’s groups and 11th-hour courtroom posturings were widely viewed as transparent attempts to delay the inevitable clobbering of their businesses once cars and trucks could drive the bridge. More about that in a minute.

What irked Finley and the other boosters far more was the 1927-1928 pushback from a scattered group of Sonoma County property owners whose anger was whipped up by an anti-tax rabble-rouser.

Ladies and gents, meet Cap Ornbaun, fulltime crank.

Casper A. Ornbaun was always identified in the newspapers as a San Francisco lawyer and he indeed had an office in the landmark Spreckels Building on Market Street, although it seemed he didn’t use it much – on the rare occasions when his name appeared in the papers for doing something attorney-ish it was almost always about handling a routine probate estate, usually in the North Bay. While he lived in Oakland he told audiences he was fighting the bridge as a Sonoma County taxpayer; he owned the 18,000 acre Rockpile Ranch above Dry Creek valley which was used as a sheep ranch. (In a rare non-bridge court filing, he sued a neighboring rancher in 1937 for briefly dognapping four of his sheepdogs, demanding $6,000 for “tiring them and causing them to become footsore and unable to go through the regular shearing season.”)

Why Ornbaun so loathed the idea of a bridge across the Golden Gate is a mystery, but he turned the fight against it into a fulltime cause – maybe it was his midlife crisis, or something. Starting in 1926 it seems he was in the North Bay almost constantly, arranging small group meetings where he could bray and bark against the bridge project.

At least once Mark Lee of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce was invited to formally debate with Ornbaun, but otherwise his speaking engagements were rant-fests attacking anyone or anything connected to the project, including the Press Democrat. At one appearance in Sebastopol he came with dozens of copies of the PD which he handed out to prove the paper was “the bunk.”

The Santa Rosa papers mentioned him as little as possible (no need to give him free publicity) but his appearances in small communities like Cloverdale were newsworthy and the local weeklies often quoted or paraphrased what he had to say. Here are a few samples:

*
 Only San Francisco weekenders would ever use the bridge
*
 Strauss is a nobody; Strauss only knows how to build drawbridges; Strauss realizes it will be impossible to actually build it and is just looking to make a name for himself
*
 It will cost over $125 million, or about 5x over estimates
*
 Safeguarding against earthquakes will cost an additional $80-100 million
*
 Maintenance costs would be $5,707,000 a year; it will cost $300,000/year to paint it
*
 It will be impossible to get enough cars across the bridge to have it pay for itself
*
 It would run a deficit of $4,416,230/year
*
 It will take too long to cross it
*
 Nobody knows if people would prefer driving across a bridge rather than crossing the bay by ferry
*
 If it collapsed during construction we would be out our money with nothing to show for it
*
 It would be a high profile target during a war and if it were bombed the Navy fleet would be bottled up in the Bay (that was actually a 1926 Navy objection)
*
 The Board of Directors are not “angels”

His main accomplice in bridge bashing was James B. Pope, a civil engineer who once worked for the Southern Pacific railroad. Ornbaun praised him as “a consulting engineer of prominence” and “the boy who knows the bridge business” (Pope was 61 years old at the time) because he had once built a 310-foot wagon bridge in San Bernadino county. The wacky cost estimates above likely all came from Pope, who finally decided the bridge would cost exactly $154,697,372 based on his analysis of geodetic survey maps. Strauss had, by the way, offered to share with him the studies prepared by his engineers, but Pope declined to look at them because he “did not need it.”

Ornbaun, Pope and a couple of others had been busy fellows in 1926-1927 and collected about 2,300 signatures of property owners who wanted to opt-out from the proposed Bridge District.2 This meant court hearings in each of the counties with sizable opposition – a process which delayed the bridge project by a full year. But hey, the hearings gave Ornbaun a chance to strut his stuff in courtrooms and cross-examine Strauss, Doyle, Finley, and other project leaders, seemingly fishing for someone to admit the whole plan was a scam or at least that true cost would be closer to Pope’s absurd estimates.

What did come out in testimony was that the booster’s motives were far less altruistic than expressed at the 1923 conference, where it was said the high-minded mission was uniting the Bay Area into “one great thriving populous community,” and bridging the Golden Gate “cannot be measured in dollars and cents.” They were very much using dollars and cents as their measuring stick; Doyle and others who testified were clear their primary objective was jacking up Sonoma and Marin real estate, and they originally wanted Strauss to build something fast and cheap.

Although the 1927 PD headline below says property values might double, some of the actual testimony on that day predicted it would shoot up to 400 percent. And even if the bridge couldn’t built for some reason, they were already ahead – speculators had been buying and selling Marin and Sonoma land on the promise of the bridge almost immediately after the 1923 conference.

1927realestateSorry, Casper – despite all your efforts, the court threw out your case at the end of 1928. That meant the Bridge District could be formed and impose a small property tax to pay for tests and studies to see if the bridge could be built at all. Ornbaun continued to rattle around for a couple of more years making threats to sue, but no one paid much attention.

Flip the calendar ahead and it’s 1930, time for the District’s six member counties (San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Del Norte, parts of Napa and Mendocino) to vote on a $35 million bond measure to pay for construction. And suddenly there are new bridge opponents: The Pacific American Steamship Association and the Shipowners’ Association of the Pacific Coast. They’re saying the bridge might be too low for safe passage, and there should be first an independent investigation by the state – never mind that the War Department had already approved it as having enough clearance for any ship in existence or under construction.

The Press Democrat and ads by the Bridge District fired back that the “Ferry Trust” was using the associations as front groups to confuse voters, but never explained the connection. Perhaps they didn’t know at the time that the two associations were essentially the same company, in the same offices and the president of both was the same man: Captain Walter J. Petersen – a man who apparently had no familiarity with steamships except as a passenger. The “Captain” in his title referred to his Army service in WWI, or maybe because he was also a captain in the Oakland Police Department in the 1920s (he was Police Chief for awhile, and always referred to as “former Chief” in print except when the reference was to the associations).

Sorry, Captain/Chief – the bond passed with overwhelming support, and nothing more would be said about those serious threats to navigation which were keeping you awake nights. To celebrate, Santa Rosa threw a “Victory Jubilee” parade which included a huge bonfire in the middle of Fourth street, with an effigy labeled “Apathy” thrown into the flames.

The last challenge to the bridge happened in 1931-1932, just months before construction was to begin. This time it was a suit in federal court charging the Bridge District was a “pretended corporation” so the bond was null and void. This time the ferry companies convinced two businesses to act as fronts for them.3 This time the ferry companies used their customary law firm to represent their proxies in court. This time it was so transparent that the ferry companies were behind this crap the American Legion and other groups demanded a boycott of the ferries as well as the Southern Pacific railroad. This time the ferry companies gave up in August, 1932, rather than pursuing their nuisance suit all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What’s truly amazing about all this was the contemptuousness of the ferry companies, no matter what. Sure, our lawyers are representing those companies in the anti-bond lawsuit, but so what? We’re not actually a party to the suit! No, the bridge is not necessary – our ferries are more than capable of handling the traffic demands across the Golden Gate! Never mind that there were routinely hours-long backups on the auto ferries during peak times. At the end of the 1926 Memorial Day weekend there were eight thousand cars in Sausalito queued up for a spot on a ferry. Many gave up and parked their autos as far away as San Rafael so they could get a seat on a ferryboat and make it in to work the next day. It took three days working around the clock just to clear the line of people who were still patiently waiting with their cars.

It was because of these crazy bottlenecks that everyone, everyone, hated the ferries so much that the North Bay was ready to consider a ferry boycott, even though it would have cut us off from nearly all connection to San Francisco – we might have been forced back to the pre-1870 heyday of Petaluma riverboats.

Without its monopoly, the ferry was doomed. Where they had earned a 25 percent profit a year (!!) in the mid-1920s, they lost $1,000,000 in 1937 after the Golden Gate Bridge opened. The company slashed fares. They tried to sell the franchise to the Toll Bridge Authority for $3.75M. Finally in July 1938 – 14 months after the first car drove across the bridge – Southern Pacific closed the ferries to the public.

But during the days of opening celebration, the ferries were never mentioned. On that 1937 Memorial Day weekend the public could not wait to be on their new bridge. During the preview “Pedestrian Day,” 202,000 came to walk the bridge, so many that the turnstiles couldn’t keep up; they opened the barriers and put out tin buckets for people to throw in the nickels. The Press Democrat reported bands played from the San Francisco shore as bombs burst in the clear, deep blue sky.

In Santa Rosa there was a breakfast held in honor of Frank Doyle – who insisted he was the “stepfather” of the bridge, not its father. Mark Lee – the former Chamber of Commerce guy who debated Ornbaun a decade earlier – reminded the audience that the prize was still boosting the town: “…you face great opportunity. The tourists’ dollars, as well as those of business investors and home seekers will find a place in your community, now made so accessible to the thousands who will come into northern California.” Ernest Finley spoke of the “untold advantages and development for Santa Rosa” brought by the bridge.

On the editorial page Finley also reminded that thousands of people would be driving through Santa Rosa enroute to the ceremonies, and the governor of Oregon and other officials were being given a reception in Juilliard Park that afternoon. “Never before has Santa Rosa, destined to be the focal point for population and industry after the mammoth span is opened,” he wrote, encouraging residents to greet the cavalcade by lining Mendocino and Santa Rosa Avenues, showing “a proper display of enthusiasm.” There was much to cheer with enthusiasm that day, particularly if you were a Sonoma County realtor.


1 The “Damn the circulation” story first appeared as an afterword to “Santa Rosans I Have Known,” a collection of Finley’s thumbnail descriptions published in 1942 after his death. There Press Democrat Publisher Carl R. Lehman wrote that Circulation Manager McBride Smith approached Finley at his desk and told him the paper was sometimes losing 50-100 subscribers per day. “We can’t keep going at this rate. Our circulation will be ruined if this keeps up.” Lehman continued, “without looking up from his desk, Finley replied in his quiet but determined voice: ‘Damn the circulation. The bridge must be built.'” Smith recounted the story himself in a 1949 PD tribute to Finley but added, “he pounded the desk with his fist” as he said it. While the quote certainly matches Finley’s sentiments, it seems like an odd thing to blurt out to an office employee.

2 The anti-Bridge District count was 823 property owners in Napa and 902 in Mendocino. There were originally 574 signatures from Sonoma County, knocked down to 555 by the time the hearings began in November, 1927. That’s likely close to the number of Press Democrat subscribers who cancelled.

3 The two companies in the 1932 federal suit were the Del Norte Company, Ltd. (identified in the press only as “a large Del Norte property owner” and a “lumber firm”) and the Garland Company, Ltd. real estate firm of San Francisco led by Robert E. Strahorn, one of 92 property owners who had joined a taxpayer’s anti-bridge group as part of the 1930 opposition to the bond. The president of Southern Pacific-Golden Gate Ferries, Ltd. S.P. Eastman admitted in court he had sent a letter to Del Norte Company asking them to file the suit and promising to pay all legal fees (wire service story in Press Democrat and elsewhere, Feb. 20, 1932). Their involvement, combined with a September 3, 1925 editorial in the San Francisco Examiner, “Bridge No Foe to Lumbermen”, has led modern writers to claim there was substantial bridge opposition from logging interests, but I don’t find that mentioned in any of the voluminous coverage of all things related to the bridge in the Press Democrat, Ukiah papers, or elsewhere.

1928ferry
 

sources
 

‘It’s the Bunk,’ Ornbaun Says In Discussing S.F. Bay Span

…Ornbaun was armed with many generalities, few if any figures, and an armful of Press Democrats. He spent most of his time asserting that the Press Democrat was the bunk and seeking to explain how the newspaper had sold itself to the bridge project. Incidentally, he asserted also that the bridge project was “the bunk.”

“The bridge can’t be built. I know it can’t be built. It is impossible to build it. And after it is built it will cost $300,000 a year to paint it. Such, in effect, was his reference to the proposed span from San Francisco to Marin county.

“I am interested in this fight only because I am a Sonoma county taxpayer,” he asserted. He referred to the fact that he represents 20,000 acres of Mendocino and Sonoma county land, but did not mention that it was sheep land.

“I have not been promised money by the railroads or timber interests, he continued. “When the bridge is built it will take too long to cross it.”

The speaker took occasion to flay Joseph B. Strauss of Chicago, one of the country’s foremost bridge engineers, by saying Strauss is “guessing” in his Golden Gate bridge design. He praised one Pope, who in a Humboldt county meeting admitted he was not a bridge engineer, as “the boy who knows the bridge business.”

“I hope to address more people next time I speak,” concluded Ornbaun, speaking to a crowd which had dwindled to about 50, about half of whom were from Healdsburg and points other than Sebastopol…

– Press Democrat, March 17, 1926

 

BRIDGING THE GOLDEN GATE

THERE IS AN OLD SAYING to the effect that the luxuries of today are the necessities of tomorrow. We also have the necessities of today that must be met without wailing for the tomorrows. With these must now be classed the bridge across the Golden Gate, once regarded merely as an idle dream.

San Francisco, cooped up as she is with a land outlet in only one direction, has come to realize that a bridge across the Golden Gate is necessary to her further growth and development. We of the North Bay counties know only too, well that this section of California can’ never come fully into its own until we have been brought into direct connection with the metropolis.

Engineers agree that the bridge can be built. Financiers assure us that the necessary funds will be forthcoming. Under the circumstances, no time should be lost in putting the project under way. With such a spirit back of the movement as was manifested here Saturday, there seems to be no good reason why actual construction should not begin at a very early date.

Then watch us grow!

– Press Democrat, January 14, 1923

 

You Can’t Convince Him

Arguments heard from time to time against the feasibility of the Golden Gate bridge project represent for che most part a set mental attitude of those who do not want to be convinced. You cannot discuss projects of this character with men who begin by sweeping aside with one breath all the arguments in its support, and attempt to start from there-There is the man, for instance, who sets his judgment against that of the worlds foremost engineers and says the bridge cannot be built at all. We also have the man who has heard somebody opine that the cost will not be twenty-five millions as has already been carefully computed by experts, but sixty or eighty millions, and who knows it will really cost a lot more. We have also the individual so constituted that upon his mind facts already established and details actually accomplished make no impression. He does not want to take them into consideration and so ignores them or else calmly denies their existence There is also the man who is devoid of imagination. He cannot possibly see how connecting this part of the state with the rest of California and cutting out the troublesome ferries, could improve conditions, add anything to our population or increase property values The bridge cannot be built, because nobody has ever built one like it up to the present time; if possible to construct such a bridge, its cost would be many times that estimated by people engaged in the business, and therefore prohibitive; the cost would not be met by the collection of tolls, as planned by its projectors, but from the pockets of the taxpayers; it is a county matter rather than a district undertaking, as set forth in the law, and consequently if the bridge should be constructed and finally prove unsuccessful final responsibility would rest with the counties making up the district and perhaps with some one county alone, with the result that that county would be wiped off the map; there is no way one can prove that people would cross on a bridge in preference to crossing the bay by ferry, or that more people would travel up this way if they could do so more conveniently than they can at present, because that fact has not yet been demonstrated; if the bridge should be built and something should happen to it later on, or if it should collapse during time of construction, the bonding companies might net pay and we would be out our money and have nothing to show for it these are some of the arguments of the man who is against the project for reasons of his own, but does not care to come out and say so. Talking with him is a waste of time.

– Press Democrat, August 1, 1925

 

Great Engineering Feat Proposed to Connect Marin-San Francisco Counties by Bridging the Golden Gate

Mr. James H. Wilkins, one of the eldest residents of San Rafael and a man who has the best interests of the county at heart has interested himself in the great scheme of connecting Marin County with San Francisco county by the construction of a massive bridge across the Golden Gate.

Would Extend From Lime Point to Fort Point Bluffs

A lengthy article accompanied by a map was presented in last Saturday’s Bulletin. It is not a new scheme but has been talked of for a great many years. Nothing, however, as definite as the plan therein presented by Mr. Wilkins has been advocated. This great project should appeal not only to the residents of Marin County but the residents of the entire northern part of the State.

Quoting from Mr. Wilkins communication the following plan is outlined:
From Lime Point To Fort Point Bluffs

“To give a general descriptive outline, the abutments and backstays would be located, respectively, on the rocky blue of Lime Point and on the high ground above Fort Point. The breadth of the “Gate” here is 3800 feet. The towers over which the cable pass, would be so located as to give a central span of 3000 feet, and side spans of approximately 1000 feet. The catenary, or curved line formed by the suspended cable, would have a central dip of approximately 65 feet. Therefore, the elevation of the towers must be 215 feet to secure the clearance required.

“From the southern abutment the railroad line would descend by a threequarters of 1 per cent grade, bringing it precisely to the elevation of the intersection of Chestnut and Divisadero streets, a block away from the site of the Tower of Jewels, that marked the main entrance to the never-to-be-forgotten Exposition. Just a few blocks farther is the belt railroad that traverses the entire waterfront, the business heart of the city, ready to be a link of the great commercial carrier of the western world.

Pedestrian Promenade Across Strait
Novel Idea

From this plan might be omitted the upper or promenade deck, with material reduction of cost, leaving only rail and automobile roadways. The promenade is, indeed, more or less of a matter of sentiment. Crossing the Golden Gate in midair would present, perhaps, the most impressive, emotional prospect in the world. Why should not those enjoy it who are, by unkindly circumstance, still constrain travel on their own legs? Moreover, it would be best observed leisurely, not from a flying train or automobile.

“After the shock of the bare statement, the first and preliminary inquiry arises, Is the project practicable—and practical?

“Beyond cavil or question, yes—far more so than the proposed five and a half mile bridge between Oakland and San Francisco. This is not a guess. I do most things in life indifferently, I am a graduate civil engineer, know a thing or two about applied mathematics and am familiar with construction work from building pigsties to building railroads—I have built both. The proposed suspension bridge—the central span—would be longer than any other structure of its kind in the world. But that only means stronger material, extra factors of safety. And nowhere in the world has nature presented such an admirable site. Bluff shore lines and easy gradients on either side —no costly approaches and still more costly right of way.

Idea Was Old As as State’s Railroading

The idea is almost as old as railroading in our State. When the Central Pacific made its entry into California, the original route via Stockton, Livermore Pass, Niles canyon, with its long detour and heavy grades was found to be impracticable. The company, therefore surveyed a more direct low-level line, departing from the present route east of the Suisan marshes, passing through the counties of Solano, Napa, Sonoma and Marin. In 1862 I was present at a session of the Marin Supervisors when Charles Crocker explained his plans, among which was a suspension bridge across the Golden Gate. Detail plans and estimates for such a bridge were actually made by Central Pacific engineers. But, along came a man with a newer idea—the transfer of trains across Carquinez straits by steamer and the extension of the Oakland mole to tide water. And so the suspension bridge project died.

“The length of the proposed bridge from Oakland to San Francisco is approximately 27,000 feet, as against approximately 5000 feet from abutment to abutment of the suspension bridge. The former, if constructed on arches, could not fail to interfere seriously with navigation of the upper bay. One serious objection seems to be that the projectors do not know where to land it on our side of the bay. One engineer gives it a terminal on the summit of Telegraph Hill!

Cost Ranging From 25 to 75 Millions

“The estimates of the cost of the San Francisco-Oakland bridge range from 25 to 75 million dollars.

From such data as I have, and by comparison with the cost of similar structures, a suspension bridge across the Golden Gate could be built for less than ten million dollars. This is an extreme estimate, accepted by several engineers to whom this article was referred.

“But as a final and fatal stumbling block, the foolish jealousy between the rival towns will never permit them to join in a great constructive enterprise till human nature has materially changed. That will not be in my time or yours.

“Of course, it will be objected to at once that both terminals of the suspension bridge would necessarily be located on military reserves of the government. But such an objection could hardly stand. Indeed, it ought to be an immense strategic advantage to have the two great defensive points of the harbor connected up. Doubtless the government would gladly grant the easement. It is in inconceivable that any government would arbitrarily block one of the greatest and most significant undertakings ever attempted by civilized men. Certainly no hostile attitude was assumed at Washington when the plan was materially considered over forty years ago.

Financing of Project a Community Investment

“Still as the intimate concern of San Francisco and the North Coast counties, the undertaking should be properly financed by these communities, as a public utility concern. Having only a sincere desire to be closely united, this ought to be simplicity itself, for the extremely simple reason that a bond issue of $10,000,000 would take care of itself and speedily retire itself. The Northwestern Pacific Railroad alone spends half a million dollars a year to maintain a line of steamboats between San Francisco and Marin county points, which is extremely wicked interest on the total cost. Very small charges for its use would soon pay interest, principal and all.

And if, from a financial standpoint, it were a total loss, still San Francisco would be far ahead. The city could well afford to pay $10,000,000 or more for the greatest advertisement in the world—for a work never before surpassed by the imagination and handiwork of man. Whether viewed from its lofty deck, commanding the contrasting prospect—to the west, the grand old tumultuous ocean; to the east, the placid bay; or from incoming ships; or from the landward hills: it would bid fair to remain forever the most stupendous, awe-inspiring monument of our modern civilization. And it could have no rival, for there is only one Golden Gate in the world.

Greatest Of World’s Harbor Improvements

“Even in remote times, long preceding the Christian era, the ancients understood the value of dignifying their harbors with impressive works. The Colossus of Rhodes and the Pharos of Alexandria were counted among the seven wonders of the world. The same tendency appears in our own times, witness the cyclopean Statue of Liberty at the entrance of New York harbor. But the bridge across the Golden Gate would dwarf and overshadow all.”

This proposition has created more enthusiasm in San Rafael than any other for some time. Mayor Herzog and the City Council have all endorsed it enthusiastically. The Central Marin Chamber of Commerce is expected to act at their next meeting and the County Supervisors will also probably act at their meeting next week. While the cost of such a bridge would be enormous it is not insurmountable as pointed out in Mr. Wilkins’ article. Such a proposition if constructed would undoubtedly double the value of real estate in Marin county in a short time and no doubt in a few years the population of Marin county would increase five-fold. This proposition is not a wild-cat dream and deserves a lot of consideration.

– Marin County Tocsin, September 2 1916

Read More