alcohol

BEWARE THE HOBO CARPENTER

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Another strange vignette from the 1906 earthquake finds a letter warning homeowners to shun smooth-talking hobos offering to do cleanup and repair jobs on the cheap. In truth, that was a light year for hobo sightings, so methinks that the letter-writer was one of those “reputable, responsible local contractors” who was not getting homeowners to pay the prices he was asking. Press Democrat editor Ernest L. Finley loved to elaborate on hobo stories, but aside from a brief sighting of “Tennessee Bill” and a couple of brushes with the law, pickin’s were slim.

Editor Republican: Refugees, some worthy, some not; hobos from everywhere and nowhere are finding that Santa Rosa is a veritable Mecca. Scarcely do they hit the town till they also hit some brother hobo who has taken the G. M. H. degree, and immediately he is set to work cleaning brick, shoveling debris, sawing, nailing, hammering, or what not, at a price that suits the G. M. H. The G. M. H. degree man very adroitly wormed himself into the confidence of some patriotic, kind hearted, enterprising citizen, securing a contract by smooth talk and underbidding all the reputable, responsible local contractors. Of course Mr. Grand Master Hobo has the best interest of the city at heart, and that is his pocket. He starts out with the full intention of working for the best interest of the city. He knows he cannot do along legitimate lines, so he calls his weaker brother hobo to his relief. Results: If contract is completed at all, a miserable botch job; our own legitimate, taxpaying contractor, journeyman and laborer, temporarily at least, laid on the shelf, the owner buncoed, the business man robbed to the tune of the hobo’s wages for he spends his money elsewhere. – CITIZEN

– Santa Rosa Republican, June 6, 1906
PEERING HOBO CAUSES ALARM
Man Upsets Serenity of Healdsburg Avenue Vicinity by Peeping Through Fences

Some little excitement was caused this morning in the vicinity of Healdsburg avenue, and College and Benton streets, by an individual who kept peeping through the fences of rear yards, and acting in a suspicious manner. This was noticed by D. J. Paddock, a resident of that vicinity, who made it his business to keep his eye on the suspicious acting individual. He finally lost sight of the man entirely, and then sought his good friend, Tol T. Overton, and from him borrowed a saddle horse with which to round up the man.

Finally the services of Officer Herman Hankel were called into requisition, and the officer apprehended the man and took him into custody. He gave the name of James Gordon, and said that he had been peering into rear yards to see if there were any wood piles he could get to cut, or any yards he could spade for the residents. He said he saw a man with “whiskers” eyeing him, and decided to get out of the vicinity. It was while escaping that Hankel captured the man, some distance from the section where he had caused such uneasiness by his peering around.

The neighbors breathed easier after Hankel had taken the man into custody. He has probably learned a valuable lesson from his experience, that it is not well to peer through fences into yards and act in a suspicious manner. Gordon is a genuine hobo.

– Santa Rosa Republican, March 29, 1906
“Tennessee Bill” is Glad

Charles Cornelius Tennessee Goforth, one of the best known characters of the state, who was released on Monday by City Recorder Bagley on a charge of drunkenness, was before Justice Atchinson yesterday charged with disturbing the peace. Tennessee is noted for his voice and when he gets a little too much liquor aboard he lets it be heard in a yell which startles the whole city. Yesterday morning he mounted the court house steps and expressed his joy at again being in town after an absence of a year and a half. Justice Atchinson gave him fifteen days in the county jail to entertain him while here. Goforth came to California in 1856 from Tennessee and since 1858 has been a resident of the state.

– Press Democrat, February 28, 1906
SIXTY DAYS IN JAIL FOR HIM
Cheery Greeting Given Man From Healdsburg When He Entered Jail Here on Thursday

“Hello, Lapmin, you here again.” This was the cheery greeting given an elderly man Thursday afternoon as he passed through the portals of the county jail on Third street, escorted by City Marshal Parker of Healdsburg, by Jailer Serafino Piezzi.

“Yes, I have come to stay with you again for a time,” was the rejoinder. Piezzi had recognized in O. Lapmin on sight, a former boarder at the Hotel de Grace.

The man was sent here by Justice Provines for sixty day for vagrancy. On the pretense that he was the owner of a valuable stallion, that he had money in the bank, that he had worked for a Healdsburg citizen and was owed a considerable sum of money, that he had a large ranch in Humboldt county and that his sons there also had ranches–goodness knows how many more reasons–he had fed well and fattened at the residence of a respected old lady in Healdsburg who takes in boarders. Finally it was proved that he was minus all the worldly possessions he claimed. Then for a week past, it is said, he imbibed quite freely and sought the shade of the plaza benches in the northern capital to “sleep it off.” He was dozing peacefully more than once when the majesty of the law as represented in the Healdsburg marshal descended upon him and finally he went “up against” Judge Provines, who suggested that sixty days of more enforced rest would be about the thing for him.

– Press Democrat, August 24, 1906

Read More

SALOON TOWN

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

On April 18, 1906, a great tragedy befell Santa Rosa: All saloons closed for about a month. There was also that earthquake thing, too.

This was a hard-drinking town in the early 20th Century, with nearly three dozen saloons packed into its small downtown; you were never more than a few doors away from a glass of beer or a shot of whisky, particularly if you were staggering along 4th Street.


View 1906 Santa Rosa in a larger map

(RIGHT: Approximate locations of saloons in 1906 projected on a map of modern-day Santa Rosa. Data based on list of applications for liquor license renewals that appeared in the Press Democrat, Dec. 13, 1906)

Like every other business in town, the saloon trade was disrupted by the earthquake. Some of Santa Rosa’s most famous drinking holes aren’t found on this map; the Occidental Bar was gone until its namesake hotel was again standing, and the Oberon wouldn’t reopen until the Shea Building was rebuilt. Also not listed here is the infamous “Call No. 2;” that joint wasn’t even allowed to apply for a license renewal following a standing-room-only public hearing where complaints were aired about noise and rowdiness. But there are 33 places on this map, and the 1908 city directory lists thirty bars at that time, so although names and locations slightly drift, this is still a fair representation of the Santa Rosa saloon scene in that era.

About a dozen saloons each were clustered around the train station and court house square. The places closer to the court house seemed to appeal to men from the town’s business class and gamblers visiting Santa Rosa for the horse races (although the Oberon, Santa Rosa’s pre-quake gambling HQ was in limbo, owners Brown & Gnesa had two interim saloons shown on this map). The downtown saloons consistently enjoyed good press; when Jake Luppold reopened his “New” Senate Saloon with a big feed, the Republican gushed that “Luppold’s reputation for hospitality is second to none…Luppold’s friends are legion, and they called and partook of the viands with a relish.”

By contrast, the Call and other places down by the train tracks – which never, ever, advertised in the papers – were never, ever, mentioned kindly in the papers. During the Jan. 2 1907 City Council meeting where saloon license renewals were discussed, two of the three applications being questioned were part of the cluster near the tracks, and the police chief reported that the owner of one saloon was frequently intoxicated and “used vile language [that] had driven ladies from the adjoining restaurant.” Besides running a “disorderly house,” it was also alleged that he frequently beat his wife. There was no mention at all why the single downtown saloon’s license application was denied.

Compare also the way police treated code violations: The proprietor of the downtown Germania was slapped on the wrist when an officer caught him drawing a beer after the earthquake curfew. The same officer Boyce later arrested the proprietor of a restaurant on lower 4th Street who violated the law by serving a plate of crackers as a “meal” to drinking men (read update here).

Saloon hours were restricted in the wake of the quake, but details are unclear. It’s presumed that they were ordered closed immediately after the disaster just as they were in San Francisco, but there’s no mention in the contemporary newspapers. We likewise don’t know when they were allowed to reopen for limited daytime hours after signing an agreement to obey curfews (and probably other rules), but it was presumably about a month later. The thread picks up again in mid-June, as saloonkeepers were bridling under the restrictions that they could only be open from 8AM to 6PM. The City Council was inclined to return their hours to the pre-earthquake 5AM-Midnight, but the mayor forced through a rule that the new hours would be 6AM-8PM.

At the “Call No. 2” hearing, by the way, it came out that one of the witnesses against the place had repeatedly tried to bring a “lady” – quotes theirs, presumably to suggest that she was a prostitute – into the saloon, but wasn’t allowed entry. Women were reportedly seen around the saloon (although witnesses couldn’t be sure that they weren’t seeing the housekeeper, who lived there). Another witness claimed that some time ago “two negroes came out of the saloon and addressed remarks to her.” Apparently these vague allegations were serious enough to lose your business, if it happened to be a bar on the wrong side of the tracks.

City Council Meeting

[..]

Proprietor Pflugi, of the Germania Hotel, was summoned to appear before the council, it having been charged that he had kept his bar open after 6 o’clock in the evening. He stated that his bar had to do triple duty, bar, office, and sitting room, and that a portion of his boarders had to sit there Thursday night out of the rain, while the others ate their supper. He said he had not sold any liquor. Police officer Boyes said he saw a glass of beer drawn at 8 o’clock and carried out of the room. This glass, the proprietor claimed, was for the cook, who “would not work without his beer.” Mr. Pflugi was allowed to go with an admonition. After the storm the bar must close.

Chief of Police Rushmore said other saloon men wanted to make their saloons into “offices.” The matter was discussed and it was stated plainly that any liquor selling after 6 o’clock at night will result in the revocation of the license.

In the opinion of councilmen the saloon men ought to feel satisfied that they had been allowed to open their places at all at this time and should be very careful to obey the agreement they had signed.

– Press Democrat, May 26, 1906

SALOON MEN CAME NEAR WINNING OUT

The saloon men of Santa Rosa presented a petition to the city council Tuesday evening, asking that they be permitted to return to the opening and closing hours which prevailed before April 18. At present they open at 8 in the morning and close at 6 in the evening, and under the former regime they opened at 5 and closed at midnight.

Councilman Donahue moved that the petition be granted, saying he saw no reason why a return to the old regime should be longer delayed. He stated that most of the money spent in saloons was spent after 6 o’clock in the evening, at which time the saloons were now forced to close…

Mayor Overton declared he believed it a good idea to keep the saloons closed, and give the people an opportunity to save the money instead of spending it for booze. Councilmen Johnston and Reynolds entertained similar views, and voted against the proposed opening until midnight. Councilman Wallace had not arrived at the meeting, and had no chance to vote.

When the motion was about to be declared as carried, it was learned that the opening of the saloons after the hours now prescribed would have to be done by resolution. The matter was dropped for the time being.

– Santa Rosa Republican, June 20, 1906
SALOONS CAN OPEN NOW FROM 6 A. M. TO 8 P. M.

The saloons of Santa Rosa open at 6 o’clock this morning and will remain open until 8 o’clock tonight. This will be the rule until further notice, a resolution prescribing these hours having been carried at last night’s Council meeting. The matter was introduced by the reading of the following communication from Mayor Overton:

Santa Rosa, Cal., July 3–To the City Council of the City of Santa Rosa, Gentlemen:

After careful consideration of the resolution passed by your honorable body at your last meeting allowing the opening and closing of saloons same hours as before April 18th, I have to withhold my approval of the resolution.

I deem it for the best interests of the people of Santa Rosa and for the best interests of men engaged in the liquor business that they close their places of business at reasonable hours as all other business men do. The present hours from 8 to 6 o’clock I regard as being too stringent and would recommend the adoption of the same hours to prevail in San Francisco when the saloons open there, to wit, from 6 o’clock in the morning to 8 o’clock in the evening. Respectfully submitted, J. P. Overton, Mayor of the City of Santa Rosa

When it came to adopting the Mayor’s suggestion the vote stood as follows: [ 3 Ayes, 3 Noes ], Mayor Overton gave the casting vote in favor of the amendment.

– Press Democrat, July 4, 1906

LUPPOLD ENTERTAINS HOST OF FRIENDS

Jake Luppold celebrated the opening of the “New Senate Saloon” Sunday in a manner worthy of his past efforts at entertaining his friends. Mr. Luppold’s reputation for hospitality is second to none, and on Sunday he exceeded his former substantial menus. The piece de resistance was chicken, and of these sixty-four were roasted. Each was stuffed and those who partook of the feast were served generously. To this were added eight hogs’ heads, a number of different salads, relishes and all the concomitants that go to make a magnificent spread. Mr. Luppold’s friends are legion, and they called and partook of the viands with a relish. Experienced caterers were on hand to serve the feast, and all had an enjoyable time. Mr. Luppold expects to duplicate the feast on Thanksgiving day, that being an established annual custom with him.

– Santa Rosa Republican, July 23, 1906

SUPERVISORS HEAR EVIDENCE
Petition to Revoke License of Alleged Disorderly Saloon on West Third Street

The “Standing Room Only” sign could have been out at Supervisor’s hall on Thursday afternoon. The seating capacity of the room was taxed to its utmost. The occasion was the hearing of the petition to revoke the liquor license held by George M. Simpson for the “Call No. 2 Saloon,” on West Third Street.

It was alleged that Simpson had kept a disorderly house, that unseemly noise and disturbance was created there and there were other charges.

Among the witnesses called were [13 names] and others.

After listening to the testimony, the petition to revoke the license was dismissed. It is only a few more days until all saloon keepers will have to present new petitions, as licenses have to be renewed at the first of the year.

After dismissing the petition, the Supervisors proceeded to hear evidence on the revocation of the license under which the saloon is run, and when all the witnesses were heard the matter was taken under advisement. The reason for the dismissal of the petition was owing to the fact that it was shown that Simpson does not personally hold the license.

One of the ladies called testified that she had once been accosted by intoxicated men outside the saloon. Another testified as to the noise from the place. Other witnesses testified as to the general reputation of the saloon.

Simpson denied that he had kept a disorderly house despite the fact that others had testified that there had been unbecoming conduct. Simpson claimed that one of the principal male witnesses against him had asked to be allowed to entertain a lady friend at his place and when he refused to allow him to do so the witness became angry.

– Press Democrat, December 7, 1906

TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT

The Board of Supervisors took the matter of the refusal to grant a liquor license to George Simson, of the Call saloon No. 2 under advisement late Thursday afternoon. The hearing of the matter continued until 5 o’clock, and the board took an immediate adjournment. The hearing brought to light some matters that were unexpected and it was testified that a certain witness had attempted to meet a “lady” there three times, but without the consent of the proprietor. The woman and other persons at divers times, it was shown in the testimony, had been ejected from the saloon. The petitioners declared that Simpson’s place was noisy and boisterous, and that it was not properly conducted. All of the allegations were specifically denied by Simpson, who declared that his place was conducted equally well as other similar places. One of the lady witnesses declared that a couple of months since two negroes came out of the saloon and addressed remarks to her as she was passing en route to her home. Some witnesses testified to seeing women about the place, but they were not certain it was not Mr. Simpson’s housekeeper, who is there permanently.

– Santa Rosa Republican, December 7, 1906
ARREST UNDER A NEW ORDINANCE
Elisa Perrotta Charged With Violation of Provision for the New Restaurant License

Elisa Perrotta, the erstwhile former proprietor of the Milano hotel on lower Fourth street, who lost his license for disobeying the city ordinance some time ago, and who since opened a restaurant, is again in trouble.

A complaint was sworn out by Police Officer John M. Boyes on Saturday against Perotta charging him with a violation of the new license ordinance No. 238, particular the section applying to restaurant licenses.

It was stated that three men went into Perotta’s restaurant and three drinks were put on a table and at the same time a plate with two or three crackers on it was also placed thereon. The restaurant ordinance provides that liquors can be served with meals only, and the cracker diet is not going to be tolerated and in this instance the arresting officer knew it was only a “blind.”

– Press Democrat, April 21, 1907

Read More

PROVE OUR BEER IS POISON AND WIN $1,000

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

For Grace Brothers’ Brewery, 1905 was a miserable year. Just days into January, the Santa Rosa beer makers were smack in the middle of “The Battle of Sebastopol Avenue,” with some angry locals demanding the city tear up their railway spur, apparently believing the brewers were in cahoots with the steam railroad. Then in late December, it was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle that an analysis found samples of their beer were adulterated. The brewery made no comment at the time; the substance found was a harmless preservative that had been added to beer for decades. And why should they draw attention to the report? Neither of the Santa Rosa papers mentioned it, after all.

All of that changed a couple of weeks later, when the Santa Rosa Republican printed the worst story imaginable. Grace Brothers beer was adulterated with a substance that was “poisonous” (poison was mentioned three times, acid seven times, in the short article), “like formaldehyde,” and “prohibited by the Health Board of San Francisco.” Holy Ned! Demand that the sheriff arrest those varmits! Oh, wait — that would be Sheriff Frank Grace, one of those aforementioned brothers.

The brewery hit back hard with a half-page ad — significantly, in the Press Democrat only — defending the purity of their suds: “Grace Bros. Special Brew IS A PURE BEER.” They also ran a front page notice, offering a $1,000 reward to “any reputable chemist” who found adulterants in any of their products.

Although the Santa Rosa Republican story was sensationalized, irresponsible, and factually wrong, the newspaper still gets an “E for effort” for mentioning anything about a local public health issue, a topic normally taboo in the Santa Rosa papers. But contaminated, even deadly, food and drink was much in the national news in 1905; just a few days before the San Francisco report on adulterated beer came out, President Teddy Roosevelt said in his State of the Union message that any consumables “debased or adulterated so as to injure health or to deceive purchasers should be forbidden.” A few months afterward, in mid 1906, he made good on that promise and signed into law the nation’s pioneering Pure Food and Drug Act.

The Republican’s article also mentioned adulterated milk, which may seem odd in an item about beer. But at that time, Americans were most likely to associate impure food or drink with milk. Bad milk was the example used frequently by reformers in speeches and magazine articles because contaminated milk was responsible 1 in 3 cases of infant mortality. But the problem with milk wasn’t added preservatives, as the Santa Rosa paper implies, but diseased cows, filth, and improper handling.

(While we’re setting the record straight: Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle,” with its horrific portrait of the meat packing industry, often gets credit for inspiring the Pure Food law. But while the book was serialized in a socialist magazine in 1905, it didn’t have wide readership until it was published in book form a year later, when the debate over the need for new laws was settled. Credit for educating the nation belongs mostly to the National Consumers’ League Pure Food Committee, which spent years barnstorming the nation for safety regulations — good background here.)

But was the Grace Brothers beer truthfully “adulterated?” Salicylic acid is aspirin, for all practical purposes. Since the 19th century, brewers knew that adding an ounce or less of aspirin to a barrel helped prevent it from going bad in those pre-refrigeration days. An 1885 manual on brewing notes that it helps preserves beer in hot weather, but cautions that it was strictly a short-term stabilizer: “…salicylic acid frequently, after the lapse of a few months, causes the beer to acquire a most peculiar and objectionable flavour, which nothing afterwards appears either to alter or remove. It is difficult to describe this flavour, but when once tasted it will never be forgotten, and a man must be very thirsty who will drink a second glass of a beer that has acquired it…”

City of San Francisco chemist Gibbs tested 275 samples of beer and malt liquors, finding 30 of them contained salicylic acid (he also found salicylic acid in 7 out of 120 white wines). A beer blogger found a 1906 New Hampshire report where 13 of 79 beers sold were preserved with salicylic acid.

A natural plant hormone, salicylic acid is mainly found in nuts and fruits, with highest doses in spices and herbs. It has long been used as as a food preservative, and still is; according to the 2004 edition of the Bowes & Church nutritional guide, it can be found in some beers and other alcoholic drinks, tea bags, and soft drinks. Contrary to the Santa Rosa Republican article, a salicylic acid overdose in Grace Brothers beer would be impossible; a 150 lb. adult would have to drink 180 gallons at one sitting — about 10x his weight.

Found Salicylic Acid In Beer Made Here

Grace Brothers’ Brewing Company of this city, together with many other elsewhere, has come under the ban of a report made by City Chemist Gibbs of San Francisco on beers brewed in this State which contain adulterants, which report has been filed with the Health Board of that city. The report of Chemist Gibbs shows that beer made by the local brewery contains a quantity of salicylic acid, which is used as a preservative. This acid like formaldehyde and boracic acid, are poisonous in quantities if taken continuously the former being prohibited by the Health Board of San Francisco from being used as a preservative for milk. Milkmen of the metropolis are heavily fined when they are found to have used it.

There is no great danger from salicylic acid unless it is used continuously or in quantities. To the continuous user of anything containing this acid, there is danger of being poisoned. The acid is not a food, and when taken into the system has to be worked off by the system. It is possibility of the the collection of a quantity of this acid in the system that causes danger to persons who are continually taking the poison into their systems.

The report of City Chemist Gibbs covered an analysis of two hundred and seventy-five samples of beers and malt liquors, and of these fifteen firms were reported by Gibbs as containing the salicylic acid as a preservative.

– Santa Rosa Republican, January 6, 1906
PUT UP $1,000 FOR A REWARD
Grace Bros. Deny Absolutely Published Charge Regarding Their Product

As will be seen by the advertisement appearing in another column, Grace Bros., the well-known brewers, have deposited, $1,000 with the Press Democrat in refutation of the published charge that their beer contains adulterants. They called at the Press Democrat office last night and denied the charge absolutely and before they left put up the sum mentioned and offered it as a reward to be paid to any reputable chemist who would find salicylic acid or any other adulterant in any beer manufactured by them. A report filed on December 21 by the city chemist of San Francisco and published in the newspapers of that city the following morning is the basis of the charge. The Chronicle’s report of the matter read as follows:

[“]The eighth report of City Chemist Gibbs file with the Health Officer yesterday contained the results of the analyses of 275 samples of malt liquors.

[“]The value of the inspection, said the Chemist, “cannot be measured by the number of arrests. Many manufacturers are forced to adulteration by fair competition.”

[“]He comments upon the good effect of a notice sent out on July 20th warning liquor dealers that an inspection was being made. It was noticed that the larger dealers generally improved their product when they discovered that an investigation was in progress, while some of the smaller manufacturers continued to put out inferior or adulterated products regardless of their reputations.

[“]The samples found objectionable either from the presence of salicylic acid or from the presence of sulphurous acid in quantities exceeding forty milligrams per liter are given below…[“]

From a perusal of the above, it would appear that even if the charge were true, it would not be such a very serious matter, for most of the big breweries are included in the list. Th lists published by the other San Francisco papers contain many names in addition to those given in the Chronicle’s list. Grace Bros. however, deny the charge absolutely, so far as it affects them, and their offer would certainly appear to indicate that they know what they are talking about for there are no strings on it. They are of the opinion that their name was included in City Chemist Gibbs list through some clerical error.

– Press Democrat, January 9, 1906

Read More