automobiles

1910postcard

DRIVING LIKE A SANTA ROSAN

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Driving to Santa Rosa? Be forewarned police there are enforcing unreasonable new laws, such as requiring cars to have mufflers, red tail lights, and drivers to stay on the right side of the street.

It was 1912 and cars were now seen everywhere, thanks to new inexpensive designs such as the Ford model “T” and the introduction of dealership loan financing. But California still had no motor vehicle code, aside from some basic laws such as requiring drivers to stop after an accident. Cities and counties were expected to set their own rules and regulations. In Santa Rosa drivers were required to honk the horn at intersections; in Lake County motorists had to stop and turn off their engines if a horse was approaching. Petaluma police would write a ticket for having a car without a muffler but until 1912 Santa Rosa didn’t care. Speed limits varied everywhere, leading to the birth of the speed trap as a boon for government budgets everywhere. All that and more is covered in an earlier item, “The Rules of the Road are Relative.”

Santa Rosa’s City Council passed a few new road rules in the summer of 1912, none of them seemingly controversial today. No U-turns in the middle of the street; have lights on after dark; stay to the right, pass on the left. The latter may seem like a particular no-brainer but consider the two photographs of Fourth street below, from 1910 (L) and 1911 (R), both showing a car toodling down the wrong side of the street. (Photos courtesy the Larry Lapeere Collection)

According to the local newspapers, these new laws created a terrific uproar. “[M]any persons expressed disapproval of the new law in the most expressive terms,” reported the Santa Rosa Republican. “One man even declared he would never return to Santa Rosa again. Several times during the day it seemed that trouble would ensue and that arrests would have to be made.”

Tempers flared at a big Chamber of Commerce meeting a few days later as store owners complained “many of their patrons had told them and many other merchants that rather than be held up for failing to comply with the ordinance they would trade elsewhere.” A resolution was passed to create a committee to advise City Council on what downtown wanted for traffic enforcement, and by the end of the year the part of the ordinance was repealed that made U-turns illegal in the middle of the street. The police officers, who had been “busier than bird dogs” when the new laws took effect, also backed off writing tickets.

But come the beginning of 1913, enough was enough. According to the Press Democrat, “Every effort has been made to instruct the traveling public in the new ordinance and to give them the benefit of all doubt. Recently a man has been placed on duty at Fourth and Mendocino avenue, to enforce the ordinance, and he has barely escaped being run down repeatedly himself.”

It seems Santa Rosa’s driving maniacs were keeping to the proper lane only on the straight-away, but when they made turns some were cutting the corner dangerously. “Plans are being made to place officers on duty at various corners in the city without further warning and arrest every one who fails to make proper turns…A string of fines will, it is believed, have the most effect that warnings have failed to give,” noted the PD.

Of course, this gave the city cops – who already had great discretionary power to judge who was speeding, in those days before radar guns or other tools – the ability to write tickets based on the degree to which they thought drivers strayed out of their lanes while turning. “It will also enrich the city treasury,” the PD added. You bet it would.

LOOK OUT! DON’T VIOLATE THE LAW
Traffic Ordinance Regulations Regarding Cutting of Corners, Etc., Will Be Strictly Enforced Now

Owing to the persistent ignoring of the traffic ordinance by auto and team drivers, drastic steps looking to a strict enforcement of the measure. Every effort has been made to instruct the traveling public in the new ordinance and to give them the benefit of all doubt. Recently a man has been placed on duty at Fourth and Mendocino avenue, to enforce the ordinance, and he has barely escaped being run down repeatedly himself.

Plans are being made to place officers on duty at various corners in the city without further warning and arrest every one who fails to make proper turns. The law is made for the safety of drivers as well as of those in vehicles, and when an accident occurs it is always because some one has ignored the right of road.

Monday afternoon a motorcycle was run down at the above-named corner, owing to an auto driver ignoring the law and cutting the corners. The police are determined that the practice shall be stopped. A string of fines will, it is believed, have the most effect that warnings have failed to give. It will also enrich the city treasury.

– Press Democrat, February 11, 1913

WARNING GIVEN AUTO DRIVERS
Must Carry Tail Lights as Required by Law or Arrests are Likely to Follow

The attention of the police department has been called to the fact that many of the automobilists are not observing the law in regards to carrying tail lights on their machines. Several rear end collisions have been narrowly averted of late.

Chief of Police John M. Boyes wishes automobile drivers to see to it that they carry lights as prescribed by law, and which includes a tail light. He hopes this warning will be obeyed immediately or else arrest and prosecutions will follow. A lamp in time means the saving of a fine.

– Press Democrat, January 28, 1912
AUTOS AND MOTOR CYCLES MUST ALL BE MUFFLED

There are doubtless many people who will give vent to a fervent “Amen,” or something of the sort equally as expressive when they read that at last night’s council meeting an ordinance was introduced by Chairman R. L. Johnston, and passed the first reading, which provides among other things for the use of mufflers on all automobiles, motor cars and motorcycles driven or ridden in the city limits. When this ordinance is adopted it will mean the ending of a decided nusiance.

The ordinance contemplated also provides strict regulation for the observance of the rules of the road, compelling drivers of machines, etc., upon meeting each other to go always to the right, and in overtaking to go to the left. It also provides for the proper turning of street corners and a number of other desirable changes from the old order of things, which daily causes much confusion.

It also provides that after nightfall all automobiles, motorcycles and ordinary bicycles shall carry lights. There are many other requirements in this ordinance which was referred back to the Ordinance Committee.

– Press Democrat, May 22, 1912
CITY FATHERS TRANSACT BIG VOLUME OF BUSINESS

[..]

An ordinance regulating the driving of automobiles, motorcycles and bicycles in this city was adopted. It provides that mufflers on motor vehicles be closed; that all motor vehicles pass to the right, and to take to the right side of the street. In passing vehicles of all kinds from the rear, motor vehicles must turn to the left, while the one in front must turn to the right, and that on the business streets motor vehicles must not turn around except on street corners. In turning into a street, the motor vehicles must keep to the center of the street crossing. With the exception of motorcycles all motor vehicles must maintain two white lights facing to the front and a red tail light one hour after sunset.

Bicycle and motorcycle riders must not ride without having hands on their handlebars. Vehicles must run to the edge of the curb and stop when the fire bell rings. The penalty for disobeying the ordinance is a fine from $10 to $250 for each offense.

– Press Democrat, June 5, 1912
TRAFFIC SQUAD BUSY SATURDAY
Many People Express Indignation Over Law

The Santa Rosa traffic squad, consisting of Officer I. N. Lindley and Officer George W. Mathews, had a busy day on Saturday. As one of them expressed it, they had been “busier than bird dogs,” and at nightfall they felt that they had doubly earned their stipend.

It was the duty of these officers to instruct drivers of vehicles in the new ordinance which has been adopted and to them many persons expressed disapproval of the new law in the most expressive terms. One man even declared he would never return to Santa Rosa again.

Several times during the day it seemed that trouble would ensue and that arrests would have to be made. These were avoided, however. After a certain time in instructing the people, arrests will be made for violations of the ordinance.

– Santa Rosa Republican, June 15, 1912
MERCHANTS DISCUSS THE NEW TRAFFIC ORDINANCE
Many Present at the Meeting Held Last Night

The special feature of business at the meeting of the Chamber of Commerce Thursday night was a discussion of the new traffic ordinance. There was the largest attendance of the members that has been noticed in some time, and the interest taken in the discussion was very marked. Many business men of the city participated and gave their view. Two resolution prevailed.

[Resolution to create three member committee to advise City Council]

A further resolution, offered by A. O. Erwin and seconded by Max Rosenberg and carried was to the effect that the present ordinance, inasmuch as it provides a regulation that traffic keep to the right, is all that should really apply to Santa Rosa at the present time, this suggestion not including, of course, those regulations regarding speeding, riding on sidewalks, lights and other essentials for the safety of the public alson in the ordinance.

Among those who spoke on the subject were…

One of the main faults found with the ordinance by the speakers at the meeting was the requirement that wagons be unloaded alongside the curb and not permitting wagons to be backed up against the curb at heretofore. It was stated by several that in large cities where similar ordinances are in force wagons are allowed fifteen minutes to unload or load while backed up against the sidewalk.

Another objection was the requirement that people drive to the corners of streets before they can turn around. An opinion was expressed that this requirement rather aggravated instead of relieved congestion.

It was suggested that people be permitted to turn in the center of the street, where it could be done without putting traffic in a hazardous condition.

Not Criticizing Council

It should be stated that the speakers made it plain that they were not speaking in a spirit of criticism of the City Council’s enactment of the traffic ordinance, but rather in the interests of the city as many of their patrons had told them and many other merchants that rather than be held up for failing to comply with the ordinance they would trade elsewhere.

[..]

– Press Democrat, June 26, 1912

 TRAFFIC ORDINANCE IS AMENDED FRIDAY EVENING
 Persons May Turn Any Place Desired From Present Time

 Mayor Jack Mercier and members of the city council passed an amendment to the traffic ordinance at a meeting of the city fathers held on Friday evening.

 Under the terms of the amendment section five was permitted so as to permit teamsters and drivers of any kind of vehicles to turn any place on the streets without the necessity of going to the intersecting corners, as was necessary under the former ordinance.

 The ordinance regarding vehicles keeping to the right side of the street is still in full force and effect and all vehicles must turn to the left in reversing their direction on the street.

 Many persons will hear with pleasure that the obnoxious section of the ordinance requiring the going to intersecting streets has been abolished and that they may turn at will wherever they find it necessary or take the notion.

 – Santa Rosa Republican, August 17, 1912

Read More

LAWYER ARGUES AGAINST SELF IN COURT, LOSES

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Congratulations, Attorney Allison Ware, the judge ruled in your favor over Attorney Allison Ware, whose pettifogging argument reveals him to be utterly incompetent.

It’s too bad Robert Ripley was still years away from starting his Believe It or Not! column; he would have loved this 1911 situation in his hometown of Santa Rosa, where the same lawyer represented the plaintiff in one case and the defendant in another, with the same legal question pivotal in both cases. No matter how the court ruled, Attorney Ware would probably win one of the cases and lose the other. And this crazy, double-edged sword of a situation didn’t happen in different places and different times – Ware was asking for a decision from a judge at the same hearing, simultaneously arguing for and against the same point. This was a man who could obviously walk and chew gum at the same time, and probably whistle as well.

One case involved the late Pincus Levin, who was a partner in the Levin Brothers Tannery, Santa Rosa’s largest employer at the time. Levin died in a spectacular Marin county train crash in August, 1910, when twelve were killed as steam locomotives collided head-on. “The two engines reared into the air and locked themselves in deadly embrace,” reported The Press Democrat luridly. The Levin family sued the railroad for $25,000, and Ware was their lawyer.

The other case was a suit over the wrongful death of a Chinese-American man named Young Chow, who was struck by an automobile and killed at “Gwynn’s Corners”, which was the intersection of Old Redwood Highway and Mark West. His family filed suit against the driver of the car for $5,000 and Ware represented the driver.

Here’s the legal issue that was being asked: Could a lawsuit on behalf of a “non-resident alien” be filed in California? Young Chow’s beneficiaries were to be his wife and two children in China. Pincus Levin, an unmarried 28 year-old Russian-Pole who had emigrated to America ten years earlier, presumably named his parents or other relatives in the old country.

The question was pretty much a Constitution 101 no-brainer: All that mattered was that the wrongful deaths occurred within the United States. The 5th amendment guarantees “no person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” and the 14th Amendment further emphasizes due process is not restricted to just U.S. citizens: “Nor shall any State…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Constitution didn’t care that neither Pincus Levin and Young Chow were citizens, and didn’t care where any award for damages would be going. Even Chinese immigrants, who endured all manner of legal discrimination otherwise, were specifically guaranteed equal protection under the 14th Amendment by a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886).

Thus Ware and the other lawyers went before a Superior Court judge in San Francisco and were told that no, you can’t throw out a case just because the money would be going to China or Poland or wherever. It was a victory for Ware in the railroad lawsuit and a setback for Ware in the automobile lawsuit.

Curiously, no newspaper editorialized about how damned odd it was for Ware to show up at a court hearing wearing two hats. The Press Democrat mentioned it in passing and implied Ware felt the railroad was making a Hail Mary Pass by raising the issue but appended the automobile suit to the motion because it couldn’t hurt so why the hell not:

“Attorney Ware thought at the time there was no merit in the contention and that he could easily defeat such a proposition of law. However, he brought forward the same point in the suit of the Chinese administrator against Charles Patchett of Healdsburg. This was done in order that if the point was sustained in the court by Judge Hunt that it could be taken advantage of in the court here.”

How did these lawsuits end? Nothing more about the Levin case appeared in the papers, so it was presumably settled out of court quickly after the judge’s ruling. The railroad had no other defense; the coroner’s jury had already decided the railway was guilty of gross negligence. There is a footnote to the story, however. Levin was on the train because he had just obtained $6,000 (about $150,000 today) in “negotiable paper” from a San Francisco bank and the document wasn’t among his remains. The newspapers never explained exactly what it was – most likely some sort of bonds – but press coverage invariably mentioned it “could be cashed by anyone.” Some historians have since claimed it was never found, but that’s not true; a man on the wreck clean-up crew picked it up from the ground but didn’t understand what it was, and once he realized it was valuable, promptly turned it over to the bank.

The Young Chow case went to trial, but not before Attorney Ware filed a motion claiming the victim caused the fatal accident by turning his bicycle into the path of the car. (This was not the first auto fatality in the Santa Rosa area; the previous year a nine-year old boy was run over at the corner of Third and B and the coroner’s jury found the child was at fault for dashing in front of the car without looking.)

The jury decided in favor of the plaintiff, awarding Young Chow’s heirs $2,500. (Did it help that the lawyers for Chow made sure no juror owned an automobile?) The jury also found the driver was negligent in going too fast and lied about tooting his horn as a warning. There’s a footnote to this story as well: Young Chow was killed when he was bicycling back to Santa Rosa from the ranch of Harrison Finley, the grandfather of Helen Finley Comstock. Long-time readers of this journal may recall that Mr. Finley had his own dangerous encounter with an auto in 1908, when a driver crashed into a wagon carrying him and most of his family. After this death of his employee, Harrison Finley had another reason to be distrustful of the new horseless contraptions.

The final score for Attorney Allison B. Ware was 1-1, winning the Levin case and losing the Young Chow judgement. These were among his final appearances in court; he was 64 and would live about another three years. His son Wallace later wrote an autobiography titled “The Unforgettables” that recalled his father as a jovial man with a talent for persuasion. He arrived in San Francisco in 1855 and later told his children it was then a “fecund mulching bed of frolicsome fillies and gay Lotharios.” His first job, at age 18, was running a school for incorrigible youths. He succeeded by appointing six of the toughest guys to be “captains,” ordering them to disarm their fellow hoodlums and keep them in line. In exchange he promised the boys a night off every week that would wrap up with an expenses-paid visit to “a friendly resort, where the ladies are always pliant, gracious, sweet, smiling and co-operative.”

Ware eventually became the Sonoma County District Attorney, settling down with his family of six children at 1041 College Avenue, calling their home the “Ware Hatchery.” It was one of the few residences seriously damaged in the 1906 earthquake (pictures and a story here) but they rebuilt at the same location. He loved kids, hosting neighborhood spelling bees and awarding jelly bean prizes. In 1904 the family threw a birthday party for daughter Mabel where the highlight was a guessing game with the mesmerizing question, “How old is Mr. Ware?” Only a very persuasive lawyer could pull that off as children’s party entertainment.

CHINESE IS KILLED BY AUTO
Hurled in Air by Impact and Run Over by Machine

A Chinese employed on the Harrison Finley hop ranch, on the Mark West road, just off the main Healdsburg road, was struck by an automobile on Friday afternoon. The accident occurred near Gwynn’s Corners, and the Chinese was so badly injured that he passed away in a couple of hours. The dead man was riding a bicycle at the time of the accident, and must have become confused or attempted to cross the road in front of the rapidly approaching automobile.

When the auto struck the man he was hurled some distance in the air, and fell directly in front of the machine. The heavy automobile then ran over the Chinese and mashed him considerably. The injured man was carried into a near-by residence by those in the auto and Dr. R. M. Bonar was summoned to attend him. From the first it was seen that injured man could not survive and Dr. Bonar did all he could to relieve his sufferings.

The name of the driver of the auto which struck the Chinese was not learned. On Saturday morning Undertaker Wilson C. Smith went out to the residence where the Chinese passed away and brought the remains to this city.

– Santa Rosa Republican, April 22, 1911
SMALL ESTATE OF CHINAMAN
Young Chow Left Fifty Dollars for Relatives Who Reside in the Chinese Empire

The first petition in a long time in the estate of a deceased Chinaman was filed on Thursday in the matter of the estate of Young Chow. Chow did not die possessed of much of this world’s goods. He left some cash and personal property valued at fifty dollars. Young Yup is the petitioner, and the petition sets forth that the next of the kin of the deceased are Joe Shee, his wife, and two children in Pong Woo, China. Attorney R. L. Thompson is the attorney for the estate.

– Press Democrat, June 19, 1911
SUES FOR $5,000 FOR DEATH OF CHINAMAN

The predicted damage suit growing out of the killing by an automobile of Young Chow, a Chinaman, by Charles Patchett, on the Healdsburg road near Gwynn’s Corners, some two months ago, was commenced in the Superior Court yesterday by Young Yup, who has been named administrator of the Chow estate. Attorney R. L. Thompson represents the plaintiff. The dead man has a wife and two children in China and the suit in their interest. It is charged in the complaint that Patchett was driving his automobile in a fast and reckless manner at the time he struck Chow, who only loved a short time after the accident. The defendant is charged with carelessness and negligence. At the  time of the accident Chow was riding a bicycle.

At the conclusion of the testimony the Court took the matter under advisement and it stands submitted.

– Press Democrat, June 21, 1911
CAN NON-RESIDENT ALIEN PROSECUTE A SUIT HERE?
New Point Raised in Court Here on Monday

Can a non-resident alien prosecute an action in the courts of California?

This is a new question urged in Judge Seawell’s department of the Superior Court here Monday morning by Attorney Allison R. Ware in the suit for $5,000 damaged brought by Young Lup, a Chinaman as the administrator of the estate of Young Chow, also a Celestial, who was run down and killed while riding a bicycle on the Healdsburg road near Gwynn’s Corners. Charles H. Patchett, who was riding in the automobile is the defendant, and negligence is charged against him by the plaintiff.

J. M. Thompson and Rolfe L. Thompson represent the plaintiff and Allison B. Ware is counsel for the defendant. The case came up on argument Monday morning, and Mr. Ware claimed that a non-resident man cannot maintain a suit in the courts in this state. The suit is brought in behalf of Chow’s relatives in China. A similar point is being made by the Northwestern Pacific railroad in answering the suit for damages brought by the late Pincus Levin, who was killed in the railroad wreck at Ignacio where a number of persons lost their lives some time since.

Judge Seawell took the matter under advisement and his decision is awaited with considerable interest.

– Press Democrat, June 26, 1911

NON-RESIDENT CAN BRING SUIT
Attorneys Ware and Berry Win in San Francisco

Attorney Allison B. Ware and Jos. P. Berry won an important legal decision in San Francisco on Friday when they presented an elaborate argument to Judge Hunt of the superior court there, on the question as to whether a non-resident alien can bring and maintain an action in the courts.

The local attorneys represent Nate Levin, who as administrator of the estate of the late Pincus Levin, has sued the Northwestern Pacific railroad for damages. The suit grows out of the collision at Ignacio in which Levin and others were instantly killed.

Judge Hunt made the ruling direct from the bench that a non-resident could maintain an action in the courts and this establishes the standing of Mr. Levin at once.

The point was brought up by the attorneys for the railroad in this suit and Attorney Ware thought at the time there was no merit in the contention and that he could easily defeat such a proposition of law. However, he brought forward the same point in the suit of the Chinese administrator against Charles Patchett of Healdsburg. This was done in order that if the point was sustained in the court by Judge Hunt that it could be taken advantage of in the court here.

Judge Hunt has consented to hear the case of Levin against the railroad in Marin county, but the preliminary argument on the demurrer was made in the court at San Francisco on Friday. Attorneys Ware and Berry feel much elated at this victory.

– Santa Rosa Republican, June 30, 1911

CLAIM CHINAMAN WAS TO BLAME FOR DEATH

In an answer filed in the office of County Clerk William W. Felt, Jr., on Monday, in the suit of Young Yup, administrator of the estate of Young Chow, against Charles Patchett. It is claimed that Young Lup [sic] was responsible for the accident that caused his death. The Chinese was killed in a collision with Patchett’s automobile near Gwynn’s Corners last summer, and the answer sets up that the negligence of the Chinese in turning to the left side of the road instead of to the right side, was responsible for the collision. Attorneys Allison B. Ware and Phil Ware represent the defendant.

– Santa Rosa Republican, October 10, 1911

AUTOMOBILISTS ARE NOT WANTED ON JURY

Owners of automobiles were not wanted on the jury now trying toe damage suit of Young Lup vs. C. H. Patchett. During the examination of talesmen in Judge Seawell’s Department of the Superior Court here yesterday, counsel for the plaintiff queried each man as to whether he was the owner of automobiles were excused. An automobile figures prominently in this case, as the plaintiff appears as representative of the heirs of Young Chow, a Chinese, who was killed by an automobile on the Healdsburg road near Gwynn’s Corners.

– Press Democrat, January 10, 1912

$2,500 DAMAGES AWARDED FOR DEATH OF CHINAMAN
Plaintiff Wins in Trial In Judge Seawell’s Court

Charles H. Patchett, the defendant was the last witness called in the suit brought against him by Young Lup, administrator of the estate of Young Chow, claiming $5,000 damages for the death of Chow by alleged carelessness of the defendant while driving his automobile on the Healdsburg road near Gwynn’s Corners.

Mr. Patchett testified, as did other witnesses on the previous day, that he was driving carefully at the time, that he sounded his horn a number of times and also shouted to the Chinaman before the accident happened. He claimed that the Chinaman, who was riding a bicycle, turned from the track in which he was riding on the road and swerved in front of the auto. Mr. Patchett claimed the accident was unavoidable. There was some conflict of testimony as to the speed at which the automobile was being driven at the time of the collision, but Patchett maintained that he had slowed down at the time he attempted to pass the Chinaman.

Attorney Allison B. Ware, with whom was associated Phil Ware for the defendant, took the witness through a very careful examination, as did Attorney Rolfe L. Thompson, for the plaintiff, when he took hold of the witness.

Before the noon adjournment Attorney Thompson had made his opening arguments to the jury, claiming that Patchett had been negligent and that the accident could have been avoided. Counsel made a strong speech.

When court resumed in the afternoon Attorney Allison B. Ware argued the case to the jury for the side of the defendant, making a powerful case of the facts and evidence adduced and denying any negligence of carelessness on the part of Mr. Patchett.

Attorney Thompson replied to the argument of counsel for the defense in another strong speech to the jury. Judge Seawell then delivered his charge to the jury.

The jury retired to consider the verdict shortly before five o’clock. At six o’clock they were taken to “Little Pete’s” restaurant for supper in charge of Deputy Sheriff Donald McIntosh and returned shortly after seven. It was nine o’clock before they had agreed upon a verdict.

The jury found for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,500 and also answered the following special interrogatories submitted:

Was the defendant riding at a rapid rate of speed at the time of the accident? –Yes.

Did the defendant operate and manage the automobile in a negligent and careless manner at the time of and immediately prior to the said accident? –Yes.

Did the defendant cause the said automobile to slow up and lessen the speed thereof? –Yes.

Did the defendant sound the automobile horn and warn Young Chow in a timely manner? –No.

Did Young Chow, by his own negligence, contribute proximately to the resulting in life death? –No.

Did Young Chow, plaintiff intestate, when the defendant was approaching on the left side of the road in the automobile, carelessly and negligently drive the bicycle on which said young Chow was riding in front of the said automobile on the left hand side of the road? –No.

Counsel for the defense have asked for a stay of execution for thirty days. It is expected that a motion for a new trial will be made.

– Press Democrat, January 12, 1912

Read More

MR. CONTEST EDITOR IS DISAPPOINTED IN YOU

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Santa Rosa probably looked like it was evacuated that spring. From houses with drawn curtains could be heard the ringing of unanswered telephones, I imagine, and screen doors were likely jammed with calling cards. Or maybe it looked like the town was under quarantine; those who couldn’t avoid going downtown to shop or work no doubt hurried as fast as possible, avoiding eye contact at all costs. Was there an outbreak of plague? A great natural disaster? A bank collapse? Nope; it was the Press Democrat’s Kline Kar Kontest of 1911.

Oh, it started off innocently enough, all sunshine and roses.  It was just the “Press Democrat Popular Ladies’ Voting Contest” to build up newspaper circulation. Someone would win a nice prize. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Everything about the contest was unusual, starting with the prize. The lucky winner would take home a “Kline Kar” which was no cheap jalopy; it was a handmade, high-end roadster that was arguably the finest automobile sold in America at the time. Why, it was such a terrific car that young Hilliard Comstock purchased one and drove it back to Santa Rosa from Sausalito in high gear without destroying the engine (he apparently did not know how to use a gearshift) – an otherwise minor news story the PD featured on the front page because the contest had just launched.

Also quite unusual was that the contest was only open to “any woman (married or single) residing in Sonoma County.” In those days there were very few women drivers, much less women car owners; the only exception ever mentioned in the PD was the amazing Dorothy Farmer (think Farmer’s Lane) who bought a Packard in Los Angeles three years earlier and drove it all the way home on the rutty wagon trails that passed for roads. But this was also 1911, which was the year of the campaign for women’s suffrage in California and making the contest women-only could have been a nod towards bringing a bit more equitable balance to the roadways. Cynics might also wonder if eliminating men from the contest was a sexist gambit expecting the guys would help the gals “cheat.”

And make no mistake, it was certain to be a hard-fought contest. Newspapers were far more expensive than today, compared to the median household income in Santa Rosa. A subscription cost 50¢ a month, no discount for longer signups – that’s over twice the present relative cost to have the Press Democrat land on your doorstep every morning. Thus if Miss Newton convinced Uncle Charlie, a typical wage-earner, to subscribe to the PD for five years, he would be sending in nearly three weeks pay. Or once again, in modern terms: She was asking someone to write the Press Democrat a check for over $3,300 – quite the pricey commitment.

The contest was also set up to disguise the actual number of subscriptions and renewals. Signing up a new subscriber for three months gained you 500 votes; a five year signup was good for 25,000. Subscription renewals were good for half as many. There were bonus votes for enrolling in the contest early and there were promotions that awarded extra votes for longer subscriptions.

The sixty day contest began March 22 and the paper urged women to move fast: “Enlist the aid of your friends and neighbors in securing subscriptions and coupons for you,” read the instructions in the first ad, shown at right. “Keep ‘Central’ busy; use your telephone. Let everyone know that you are a candidate before they promise their help to someone else.”

Two weeks later, the newspaper turned up the heat; for the next seven days, subscriptions for a year or longer would be triple value – a five year commitment was now worth 75,000 votes. “No Greater Offer, Nor as Good an Offer as This Will be Given Again, Nor Will This Offer be Repeated,” the PD headline clamored. It was also when we were introduced to Mr. Contest Editor.

Over the next six weeks he cheered, encouraged, cajoled and bullied contestants into working harder. He was never named; we can’t even be sure he was a “he” although he sometimes referred to himself with male pronouns. From his snappy style it is apparent he was not a regular Press Democrat staffer. He was probably youngish, aspired to write the Great American Novel (or certain he already had) and believed he was 110 percent smarter than thou. I can picture him with his feet up on a desk, a straw boater tipped back on his head and chewing a stick of Juicy Fruit as he sarcastically read his latest contest advice to chortling newsboys.

His early columns sounded earnest and friendly: “The contest editor does not say what will be doing in votes after April 12, but this increase of votes will be changed and it will be surprisingly LOWER than it is now. Vote values will decrease from NOW on, they will never be higher; this the Press Democrat promises you…There are more than six weeks left until the close, and you could go over this whole county a dozen times before then.”

Nearly every day the Press Democrat printed portraits of the leaders along with their totals in the “Roll of Honor.” Mrs. Crone is out front on Wednesday; the next day it’s Miss Liggett of Third Street. The daily article about the contest sometimes had a sentence or two about each of them. Mrs. E. Crone: “If grit counts for anything, look out.” Miss Nellie Hansen of Sebastopol “bids fair to give her friendly opponents a merry chase.” Miss Doris Sullivan of Graton “is determined to represent that little town good and strong.” Mr. Contest Editor was proud of them all.

But after fifteen days, only four contestants had reached the 75,000 vote mark. It looked like there were no generous Uncle Charlies writing big checks to favorite nieces.

With the contest almost halfway around the track, it’s reasonable that Press Democrat editor Ernest Finley probably worried that it was starting to look like a flop, and the paper could even lose money on the promotion. And that was when the tone turned less cheery. The first hint of exasperation appeared: “It takes absolutely no experience to get subscriptions to the Press Democrat. It’s a staple article…so many people want the paper that they cannot be reached by an agent, and subscriptions by the hundreds are waiting all over the county for candidates to simply come and get them for the asking.” Goodbye peppy cheerleader, hello, angry sales manager. Let’s show some hustle out there, people!

The paper also launched new promotions. Despite the promise vote values will “never be higher” than the first promo, a limited offer was announced: For a few days, new bonuses would be awarded for subscriptions that could be bundled together into multiples of five years and the offer was retroactive to the previous Thursday (don’t even try to figure this out). Again Mr. Contest Editor promised: “Subscriptions will never be worth as many votes again.” Except three days after that promotion ended, there was another “big offer” increasing the base vote values for all subscriptions.

Obviously, there was some grumbling about these one-time-only deals that weren’t. Mister Contest Editor wanted it known this hurt his feelings:

You know that the Contest Editor has kept his promise. You know that the Contest Editor will continue to keep his promises, and you know that the Press Democrat has never broken faith with any of its candidates both in the past and present. Heed the word and promises of the Contest Editor. He is your only counselor. If the Press Democrat had ever broken faith with any of its candidates it never would have inaugurated this contest.

Aside from developing headaches and whiplash trying to follow the latest voting offers, the thirty women who were the most serious contenders must have been experiencing something like battle fatigue. Winning a deLuxe auto sounded like fun and the contest was fun at the start but after several weeks you’ve signed up everyone you know and everyone your friends know and now you dread getting up in the morning to spend another awful day of bothering people who don’t want to be bothered and already had been bothered by several of your competitors. It would also be natural if they felt despair; after two months of work, 29 of them would come away with…nothing. There was no second or third prize, no sales commission, no tote bag. Not even a complementary newspaper subscription.

The later columns by the Contest Editor address the women in the competition directly, and are more than a little creepy as he resorted to using shame as a motivation.

 You are letting yourself down:

Good merry contestants, here’s another chance. If in the past few days you have been dissatisfied with the efforts you have been making; if you think you have not done right by yourself and the ones who have stood by you for the past five weeks, here is an opportunity to make restitution and repent, an opportunity within a few days time to eclipse the vote of your closest rival, an opportunity to rid yourself of the anxiety of having enough votes to be assured of success. It is given as an opportunity to allow those a fair chance who were visited with illness last week. Several of the candidates, or their families, were under the weather.

Your friends are letting you down:

Now, candidates all–are you going to keep up this fierce struggle for all times until the end. Why don’t some one of you be the exceptional one. Do as the Contest Editor has been advising you to do for weeks. Get your friends in tow. Hand each and every one of them a receipt book and pledge them by their friendship to you to see that they all get a few subscriptions each. You have been trying it single handed for eight weeks. There is something the matter.

You are letting the Contest Editor down:

If there is any good reason why you can’t stay at the top, the Contest Editor would like to hear it. the Contest Editor would like to have a personal talk every day with every candidate in the race. That’s why he is writing to you every day through the Press Democrat. There are perhaps many candidates who will read these paragraphs, and that is all. Had the Contest Editor  ever advised you in error you would have a good excuse not to consider every word that is written every day.

The Contest Editor is disappointed and disgusted by you:

Ask yourself this question: Have you heeded the advice of the Contest Editor  from the beginning of this contest? In other words, have you kept busy, and will you keep busier than ever during the last three days of this contest? Of course, if you are satisfied with what you have and feel that you have all the votes you need, there is no reason in the world why you should exert yourself another moment.

Mr. Contest Editor was probably wise not to use his real name, as by that time there probably were thirty husbands or boyfriends who would have liked to give him a good poke in the snoot.

But finally it was over, and the winner was to be announced at 10PM on Saturday evening, May 20. The front page story the next morning – decidedly not written by Mr. Contest Editor – described what happened:

…The mass of people that the contest editor predicted would witness the closing of the contest commenced to gather at 9:30 last evening and from that time on until 10 o’clock a steady stream of people worked their way into the Press Democrat office.

The loyal candidates with their representatives were all present, and the great throng became a guessing machine as to who would win. Patiently they waited until the town clock tolled 10 o’clock. The doors were promptly locked and all the candidates that were inside were given an opportunity to cast their last ballots…

…The candidates grouped themselves together while the count of votes were going on, chatted good naturedly and joked regarding their chances. They went into the race knowing that but one of them could win and were ready to abide by the decision of the ballots…

…The judges then pronounced the count correct and the throng held themselves spellbound for the name of the winner.

Mayor Edwards then called off the totals and pronounced Mrs. Ed Crone of Santa Rosa the winner of the big five-passenger Kline Touring Kar.

A cheer went up from the crowd and Mrs. Crone and all that could pile in to it went out of the Press Democrat doors with a jubilant “Honk-Honk.”

Boy, what a surprise! In the last published “Roll of Honor,” Mrs. Crone was back in fifth place, with 739,260 votes – and now she was the big winner with 3,143,660. Wait – huh? She had concealed millions of votes until the last minute? Apparently so, and likewise four other finalists had kept their cards close, ending with million-plus totals.

If Gentle Reader thinks there’s something fishy about those astronomical numbers, you have company. My first question is how these mountains of subscriptions were credited; did the judges apply whatever screwy vote multiplier happened to be in effect at the time of the subscription order? Could the judges have physically counted that many new paper ballots on a late Saturday night? And what was to prevent the contestants from backdating all her “reserve subscriptions” to the earliest days of the contest, when votes had the highest values? If I were someone like Lillian Norris – whose final count was only a realistic 13,000 votes above her last Roll of Honor tally – I’d have called foul.

Still, there was nothing suspicious about identity of the winner: Mary J. Crone was the 36 year-old wife of Edwin Crone, the manager of Santa Rosa’s three nickelodeon and vaudeville theaters. It’s doubtful anyone else in Sonoma County came into contact with so many people on a regular basis. (Your OBL Believe-it-or-not angle: Her brother-in-law, Raymond, later worked in Hollywood as the production manager for Orson Welles, Fred Astaire and others. Ed and Mary stayed around and ended up as chicken farmers south of town).

Although the event is now completely lost in history’s dust, the Kline Kar Kontest left a sizable impact crater. In its front page article on the results, the PD crowed, “without the slightest doubt the circulation of the Press Democrat is now the largest in any city North of the Bay Counties, and has a great deal more than double the circulation of any paper in Sonoma County.” And the greater the circulation, the more they could charge for ads, so the promotion went far to entrench the PD as the voice of “Imperial Sonoma.”

Thanks in great measure to the goadings of Mr. Contest Editor, the acrimonious contest no doubt left scars in the community, destroying friendships and straining family ties; I imagine it became one of those regrettable events one hopes relatives won’t bring up at reunions. But if you climbed into a time machine and went back to the 1920s or 1930s and asked Santa Rosans what they remembered about 1911, chances are they wouldn’t remember the suffrage vote (memory of it would have been eclipsed by passage of the 19th amendment) or Fred Wiseman’s flight from Petaluma to Santa Rosa (it wasn’t recognized as the historic first airmail delivery until much later). But they likely remembered it was the spring of the damn car contest, when the doorbell and telephone rang so often it left everyone a bit twitchy.

Read More