Here’s a rare historical nugget: A summary of the reasons why people were behind bars in the Sonoma County jail during 1892, which I think was the only time such a list appeared in a Santa Rosa newspaper in those days.

There were 500 prisoners that year, more than half (315) being held for misdemeanors, vagrancy, drunkenness and unspecified minor offenses – the whole list can be found below. Mostly the rest is predictable: People steal things valuable or not, people hurt other people causing varying degrees of damage, and people do things that may show they are crazy or stupid. Two items that might surprise us today were child stealing (yikes!) and using vulgar language.

Both Santa Rosa and the county had laws against saying bad words in front of children or women, which was the topic of a previous article (see “THE HIGH COST OF CUSSING“). It was usually a charge thrown in with other offenses such as drunkenness or fighting, and continued to be used that way into the 1920s. But there were two cases in the 1890s that stand out because the law was seemingly used in a cruel and vindictive manner.

Alfred Jacobs, a Sebastopol 13 year-old was arrested in 1890 on two counts: assaulting his sixth grade school teacher and for using vulgar language. He was given two consecutive 60-day sentences by Judge Dougherty, but one of them was dropped when the assault charge was dismissed.

The boy stayed in jail as lawyers returned to court four times to debate a writ of habeas corpus. It’s unclear what that meant in this situation – perhaps they were trying to square the circle of arresting a child by using a law meant to protect children. At any rate, they dithered until two months had passed and he was released anyway.

(RIGHT: 1893 San Quentin mugshot of Alfred Jacobs)

Jacobs would spend much of the 1890s behind bars, including two years at San Quentin for grand larceny. “After his release from the prison, Jacobs devoted himself most industriously to thievery, and has been in trouble many times,” the Santa Rosa paper tsk-tsked in 1897. “District Attorney Seawell regards Jacobs as a dangerous menace to society.” During that decade he was also locked up for vagrancy, horse theft and burglary.

Even if you don’t take his age into account, there’s no question his punishment was harsh; that same year adults were sentenced to only ten days for swearing. Perhaps the judge intended the extended sentence as sort of a “time out” to contemplate and reform his ways – or maybe the judge was an old-school “spare the rod, spoil the child” sadist. Whatever the reason, it’s interesting to note just three days after Jacobs was given his long punishment, that judge gave a lecture on “the moral, intellectual and religious formation of character.”

The other incident where profanity was treated as a serious crime happened in 1894 – and like the case of Alfred Jacobs, it was also heard in the courtroom of Judge Dougherty.

Until she was arrested Kate Norton lived in poverty with her three children. She and her 22 year-old daughter, Bertha, were taken by the Bodega constable to Santa Rosa on charges of insanity.

There was a history of the women being harassed by local boys, which the Democrat shamefully reported as if it were a big joke. “It seems to have been their part at the town of Bodega to amuse the boys, against their will of course, but the young boys of the town have been in the habit of annoying them into a frenzy to enjoy a little loquacious concert interspersed with pungent profanity.” The paper said both were “intensely excitable and emotional and well stored with vulgar phrases and grossest profanity” because they were Irish immigrants.

Kate’s small children were held at the county jail while she and Bertha were brought to the courthouse. There a sanity hearing was held in the judge’s chambers with three local doctors who agreed that yep, the women had to be crazy to cuss at the neighbor children who were tormenting them. Judge Dougherty ordered the mother sent to the Napa Asylum and the daughter to the one in Ukiah. The little kids were to be sent to an orphanage. And with that decision, I have little doubt that Gentle Reader is thinking of some vulgar language to call that judge right about now.

The Democrat closed the item by saying the children were distraught at being taken away from their mother, meanwhile sneering that anything that happened to them was the entirely the fault of mom: “Jailor Weise has the children in the upper story of the jail. When their mother left they were told she would return. As the day wore on they missed her more and more and toward evening gave way to their feelings. A mother is missed even though she be as was Mrs. Norton, wholly irresponsible.”

That 1892 list of jailable crimes is also notable for what it explicitly did not mention: Gambling and prostitution.

By that time Santa Rosa was known for its red light district centered around the intersection of First and D streets, with at least eleven brothels in the immediate neighborhood documented after the turn of the century; Ernest Finley, Press Democrat editor and the town’s #1 booster admitted in 1908 “The tenderloin district has existed in its present locality for 30 years.” Although Santa Rosa briefly legalized Nevada-style prostitution later, in the 1890s it was certainly considered a crime: “…every lewd or dissolute person who lives in and about houses of ill-fame…every common prostitute and common drunkard is a vagrant, and is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding six months.”

(RIGHT: Cat illustrations by Louis Wain)

Santa Rosa was also tolerant of illegal gambling, although on paper the city ordinances were so strict that law enforcement officers could be prosecuted for not being diligent enough in arresting gamblers. Horse races drew the high-stakes crowd from the Bay Area (see the “WIDE-OPEN TOWN” series) but Santa Rosa had a reputation for its saloon town culture, with dozens of men-only drinking holes around downtown, each likely having a cardroom in back, which hotels and cigar shops routinely had as well. The Democrat newspaper encouraged by often printed betting odds on horses, prize fights and even political races while giving a hat tip to big winners at the track or in the backrooms: “A couple of Petaluma sporting men are said to have ‘busted the bank’ in a faro game at Santa Rosa last Saturday night…” (Sonoma Democrat, January 30 1892)

Brothels and barrooms also brought in bucks for their landlords, who were among the richest men in town. Those operations were on prime real estate, with the saloons mostly packed into the stretch of Fourth street between Railroad Square and the courthouse. In short, what we came to call “The City Designed For Living” was in that era “The City Designed For Vice,” with Santa Rosa dependent upon money flowing through its large underground economy. There was probably no other place between San Francisco and Reno with such blatant corruption.

Efforts to reform Santa Rosa didn’t get off the ground until the 1908 election, but there was apparently one man who spoke out at the time: Rev. John B. Reid Jr. of the Presbyterian church.

Reid and his wife were popular when they came here from Great Falls, Montana in 1893, with him being quickly voted in as permanent pastor. A letter he wrote church elders from Montana suggests he was an affable man with a sense of humor and no zealous bible-thumper. Here Mrs. Reid organized the choir and was the church organist; they lived at 432 Orchard street which still stands, and is now the Casa Bello Bed & Breakfast on the edge of downtown.

Then a couple of odd items appeared in the same issue of the Sonoma Democrat in 1895. One story reported there was an unusual church meeting to vote on whether to keep Reid as pastor, which he won by a narrow margin. The other item reported his wife announced he would resign “in order that the Presbyterian Church in Santa Rosa be no longer rent asunder and in the interests of peace and good feeling.” What happened? Was Reid involved in some sort of scandal?

To find out what was really going on, we have to look at newspapers outside of Santa Rosa, specifically the San Francisco Call:

For some time there has been dissatisfaction among some of the elements of the church. Rev. Mr. Reid is a vigorous preacher, and when he hits he strikes from the shoulder. He has pronounced views on dancing, card-playing and other matters, and has taken off the oratorical gloves every time he described the evils which result from these amusements. In so doing, it is claimed by some of Reid’s friends, he has greatly displeased some of the wealthiest members of the congregation, and the difference was soon seen in the contents of the Sabbath contribution-box. Some time ago the elders were notified that, owing to the hard times and the dissatisfaction, it would be best for Reid and the church if he would sever his connection with it.

(RIGHT: Rev. John Reid Jr. probably c. 1890)

From the context it’s clear that Reid’s objection to “dancing” wasn’t against the social dance parties regularly held by churches around town (although not the Presbyterian church here) and he wasn’t thinking about games of Whist and Euchre (which were the mainstay of women’s club meetings) when he condemned “card-playing.” And when he wanted those “wealthiest members of the congregation” to state clearly what he had said that so objectionable to them, they refused to answer. “Reid asked the elders to specify the charges, if they had any. This they have not done,” the Call reported.

Reid delivered a farewell sermon the following Sunday based on Acts 20:25, which is a passage from Paul’s Farewell to the Ephesians. It can be summarized as, “I tried to help but you wouldn’t listen to me. I’m outta here.” He left town and his next ministry was in Livermore.

His replacement was Rev. William Martin, an Irishman whose preachifying was less objectionable to the sensitive feelings of rich parishioners. “His sermons are not remarkable for close reasoning or deep wisdom but his style of delivery is singularly impressive and he is unquestionably a man whom churchmen would describe as ‘spiritually minded,’” commented the Democrat, which also praised “his courteous manners.” Martin remained here until 1911; his travel lectures about trips to Greece and Europe, illustrated with stereopticon slides, were quite popular. He was a nice man.

 

The Gambling Law

As considerable is being said about the enforcement of the law for the prevention of gaming, we will give it for the benefit of our readers. Section 330 of the Penal Code reads as follows; Even person who deals, plays, or carries on, opens or causes to be opened, or who conducts, either as owner or employee, whether for here or not, any game of faro, monte, roulette, lansquenet, rouge et noir, rondo, or any banking game with cards, dice or any device, for money, checks, credit or any other representative of value, is punishable by a fine of not less than $200 nor more than $1,000, and shall be imprisoned m the county jail until such fine and costs of prosecution are paid, such imprisonment not to exceed one year. Section 331; Every person who knowingly permits any of the games mentioned in the preceding section to be played, conducted, or dealt in any house owned or rented by such person in whole or in part, is punishable as provided in the preceding section. Section 332; every person who, by the game of “three card monte” so called, or any other game, device, sleight of hand, pretentions to fortune telling, trick, or any other means whatever, by use of cards or other implements or instruments, or while betting on the sides or hands of any such play or game, fraudulently obtains from another person money or property of any description, shall be punished as in case of larceny of property of like value. Section 333: Every person duly summoned as a witness for the prosecution, on any proceedings had under this Chapter, who neglects or refuses to attend as required, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 335: Every district attorney, sheriff, constable, or police officer must inform against and diligently prosecute persons whom they have reasonable cause to believe offenders against the provisions of this chapter, and even- such officer refusing or neglecting so to do, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

– Daily Democrat, July 19 1883

 

Order of Discharge.

On Tuesday Judge Dougherty issued an order of discharge in the case of Alfred Jacobs, Jr., whose application for a writ of habeas corpus has been up before the Superior Court four times. The prisoner is about 16 years of age. He is what would commonly be termed a tough customer for one of his years, being mischievous and reckless in his conduct. The charges on which he was convicted were for using vulgar and obscene language to his teacher at Sebastopol. There being two charges and two convictions, there were also two sentences, each for sixty days in the county jail. He was sentenced on the 12th of February, and the second judgment was to begin at the expiration of the first. The first judgment was absolutely void, and had so been held by the Court, and the prisoner having been in jail sixty days or more, claims that he has satisfied the only legal judgment, and as the Court thought so too, young Alfred breathes the free air of heaven once more. It is to be hoped that his incarceration will be a lesson to him.

– Sonoma Democrat, April 26 1890

 

The following interesting facts were taken from the register of the county jail Dec. 31, 1892. They go to show to a certain degree the trend of criminal action. There were confined in the jail, for a longer or shorter period of time, during the year 1892, 500 accused persons. Of these the largest number for any one crime was 137 for misdemeanors. Next, vagrancy, drunkenness and minor offenses, 178;
petit larceny, 22;
malicious mischief, 17;
assault with deadly weapon, 16;
grand larceny, 16;
insane, 15;
disturbing the peace, 12;
battery, 9;
arson, 8;
assault with intent to kill, 7;
disturbing the peace, 7; (yes, it was in the list twice)
murder, 6;
indecent exposure, 6;
simple assault, 5;
fugitive from justice, 5;
vulgar language, 4;
assault and battery, 3;
obtaining money or goods under false pretenses, 3;
mayhem, 2;
perjury, 2;
child stealing, 1;
defrauding landlord, 1;
embezzlement 1;

– Sonoma Democrat, January 7 1893 [edited to place in numerical order]

 

Mother and Daughter Pronounced Insane.

Mrs. Kate Norton and her daughter, Bertha, aged 22 years, were brought to this city on Friday by the constable of Bodega township, for examination on charge of insanity. The examination was held before Judge Dougherty and Drs. Smith, Shearer and Jesse in the judge’s chambers. Considerable of a crowd had collected and they were afforded much amusement by the peculiar conduct of the parties. They are natives of Ireland and possess a fair share of that nations fluency of speech. They were both intensely excitable and emotional and well stored with vulgar phrases and grossest profanity. It seems to have been their part at the town of Bodega to amuse the boys, against their will of course, but the young boys of the town have been in the habit of annoying them into a frenzy to enjoy a little loquacious concert intersperced with pungent profanity. The matter was taken under consideration and today upon recommendation of all of the physicians the judge sent the mother to the Napa Asylum and the daughter to the Ukiah Asylum. The two small children of Mrs. Norton will probably be sent to the Orphan Asylum Monday. The family is absolutely penniless and have no means of support and no property. The Norton family were scattered by legal process on Monday. Deputy Dougherty took the mother to Napa, Deputy Murphy the daughter to Ukiah, and the two “kids” will go down to the Home of the Feeble Minded this (Tuesday) morning. Jailor Weise has the children in the upper story of the jail. When their mother left they were told she would return. As the day wore on they missed her more and more and toward evening gave way to their feelings. A mother is missed even though she be as was Mrs. Norton, wholly irresponsible.

– Sonoma Democrat June 16 1894

 

AN IMPORTANT MEETING.
Presbyterian Congregation Considers Pastoral Relations.
Majority Vote in Favor of Retaining the Present Pastor-Appealed to the Presbytery.

The members and congregation of the Presbyterian church held a meeting to consider the pastoral relations Friday evening…The moderator explained the object of the meeting. J. M. Miller moved that Rev. John Reid Jr. be installed as pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Santa Rosa; John McWilliams seconded the motion. A statement by the session was read by Elder Crawford, also a copy of a letter which the session had addressed to Rev. John Reid Jr. in February last. W. E. McConnell on behalf of the trustees made a statement. After some discussion by various members the motion was voted on and resulted in a majority of ten votes in its favor. The total number of votes cast was one hundred and thirty. On the announcement of the vote Elder Crawford on behalf of the session protested and appealed to Presbytery. By request Rev. Dr. Nobles of San Rafael explained that according to church law the vote taken was virtually a renewal of the call extended to Mr. Reid two years ago. Mr. Reid was not present at the meeting.

– Sonoma Democrat, March 30 1895

 

Mrs. Reid explained that her husband had been induced by a consideration for the church’s welfare to send in his resignation. He had exercised his right to give up his rights in order that the Presbyterian Church in Santa Rosa be no longer rent asunder and in the interests of peace and good feeling. Mr. Reid came to Santa Rosa from Montana nearly two years ago. He received a call to be pastor by a large majority vote. Owing to circumstances with which Mr. Reid had personally nothing to do, the act of installation had never taken place. His life and labors as citizen, pastor and preacher since coming here are well known.

– Sonoma Democrat, March 30 1895

 

SANTA ROSA CHURCH ROW.
Presbyterians Disagree as to the Qualifications of a Pastor.

SANTA ROSA, March 23.-There are lively times at the First Presbyterian Church in this city in regard to the pastorate of Rev. John Reid Jr., who came here about a year ago from the Northwest. The trouble began to brew a few weeks ago and the storm culminated at a large congregational meeting at the church last night, when the question whether to keep or part with Mr. Reid’s services was decided by a very close vote. For some time there has been dissatisfaction among some of the elements of the church. Rev. Mr. Reid is a vigorous preacher, and when he hits he strikes from the shoulder. He has pronounced views on dancing, card-playing and other matters, and has taken off the oratorical gloves every time he described the evils which result from these amusements. In so doing, it is claimed by some of Reid’s friends, he has greatly displeased some of the wealthiest members of the congregation, and the difference was soon seen in the contents of the Sabbath contribution-box. Some time ago the elders were notified that, owing to the hard times and the dissatisfaction, it would be best for Reid and the church if he would sever his connection with it. Reid asked the elders to specify the charges, if they had any. This they have not done. Matters came to a focus Friday night, when both factions were well represented. Rev. Mr. Whiting acted as moderator, and the deliberations were very animated. A motion was put that Reid be installed as pastor. The vote showed a majority of ten in favor of retaining Reid. Some of the members of the opposing faction favored accepting the result of the vote, but one of the elders gave notice that he would appeal to the presbytery. When that meets it is probable that the majority and minority factions will be represented. An unpleasant feeling exists in the church over the imbroglio.

– The San Francisco Call, March 24 1895

 

WORDS DEPARTING
Rev. John Reid Preaches His Farewell Sermon.
Vast Audience Moved by Hie Thrilling Discourse.
Th« Pastor’s Relations Severed With Words of kindness—A Crowded Church.

The Rev. John Reid Jr. late pastor of the Presbyterian church in Santa Rosa, preached his farewell sermon to his congregation Sunday night. The doors of the church were opened a little before 7 o’clock to admit a large throng that had gathered despite the fact that the service was announced not to begin before 7:30. By 7:15 every seat in the church and galleries was taken and many people were standing. The folding doors that separate the church auditorium from the schoolroom were opened, and soon every bit of available space in the schoolroom was occupied, but for a half-hour afterwards people arrived at the church and. tried to gain an entrance. It was estimated that a thousand people were present. The sermon was taken from Acts, XX, 25, and when it was over Dr. Reid shook hands with nearly every one. They formed in a line down the aisles and passed out at the eastern door. The evangelical churches had closed so as to be present on the occasion. On the platform were Rev. T. A. Atkinson of the South Methodist church, Rev. W. Angwin of the North Methodist, Rev. B. F. Sargent of the Congregational, and they all took part in the service. Mrs. Reid, who organized the church choir fifteen months ago and who has had charge of it since, presided at the organ…Dr. Reid spoke earnestly, with ease and dignity. His flow of language was remarkable. He used no manuscript. Many were in tears and all were deeply interested. He spoke in part as follows: “I came to Santa Rosa over eighteen months ago because my health had failed me in the Northwest, but I am happy to state that I am more robust than for five years past. There has been much said as to the differences between myself and the officers of the church, but they have been mainly on the lines of church policy and methods of work. Other questions naturally arising out of these made it manifest that the only course for me was at once to resign the work. It has been my pleasure to form most delightful associations whilst among you. I will ever cherish the same in my remembrance.” His relations with the ministers of the city had been most cordial. “During my ministry,” be said, “I have endeavored always to preach in a practical way to the practical upbuilding of character. I believe that the important object of life is not creeds but deeds.” He had endeavored in his preaching to teach men to learn to do and to be, and had not shunned to tell them of the plain truths of the Gospel. He could have had a better time, perhaps, and had more social enjoyment if he had not had this high ideal of his duty. Instead of visiting the hospitals, jails and Chinese Mission he might have spent his time in social enjoyment. It is hard to tell the rich man that his standard of life is a low one, to tell the righteous man that he is not living an altogether righteous life. But these things he had not hesitated to do. During his ministry here he had received into the church sixty new members. Forty-two of these were received on confession of faith and eighteen by letter from other churches. There have been baptised twenty-six in all—eighteen infants and eight adults. “I have formed many happy relations in Santa Rosa and I must testify that you have in this city many men, both in public and private life, who are seeking only for the good of Santa Rosa.” Recalling the words of his text, Mr. Reid then preached an eloquent and able sermon, to which the vast audience gave close attention.

– Sonoma Democrat, April 6 1895

Read More

The safe was open and Sonoma county’s treasury was gone, every last cent. As a key was needed to unlock the safe and the end-of-year tax money was going to Sacramento the following day, it was presumed the robbery was an inside job. It was: the county treasurer stole all of it. Maybe.

In January 1857 one William A. Buster was the county treasurer and kept the county’s safe at his house. That was not as dumb as it may seem; at the time Santa Rosa was still a village at a muddy crossroads – later that year, the newspaper editor boasted there were “probably upward of a hundred” buildings. There was no bank and although it was also the county seat, the only public buildings were the courthouse and jail, both criticized for being dinky and rickety.

Initial details in the newspapers were scant, but add in later remarks and it seems Buster was playing cards at the saloon on Saturday, the 17th and went home around midnight accompanied by two friends. They found the front door partly ajar and the safe open with all the money gone: $14,439.13 – equivalent to over a half million dollars today.

Buster offered a $500 reward and left for Sacramento, where it was presumed he intended to lobby members of the legislature to not hold him personally responsible for the theft. While he was there he also picked up $2,795.10 from the State School Fund intended to support county schools. Also while he was there he hooked up with Joe Nevill.

“I told Nevill what I wanted to get,” Buster later told the court, meaning indemnity from the stolen tax money. “[Nevill] went with me and seemed to know most all the members. Harrison and Taliaferro talked favorable; Edwards I did not see. Nevill seemed to be very kind, and done all he could for me, and we drank considerable with members of the Legislature.”

His pal Nevill was still around the next morning as he prepared to leave. “He said he was out of money, and so was I, and if we would take some of the money and go to a faro bank we could win expenses.”

“I took out one hundred dollars – it was lost; we drank some brandy – it was good brandy.” Lest we get distracted by his tasting notes, keep in mind that Buster is talking about dipping into the school fund money.

“[Nevill] insisted the stake was so small he could do nothing, and wanted me to increase it and he would certainly win. I did so until we had lost a thousand dollars. He swore by his right arm and the blood of his heart, that if he lost he knew where he could get the money and would pay me back.”

The two men took a boat to San Francisco with Buster growing anxious over having gambled away so much money. Nevill proposed a poker game “and make a sure thing for me to win.” A third man joined the hand with Nevill as the dealer. “I watched him deal; he took my cards from the bottom and the other man’s from the top – the other man bet along moderately for some time and then raised to four hundred and fifty dollars.”

Buster continued: “…And then I found that Joe was not acting fair with me, and I was then all out except what I had in my pocket, one hundred and forty dollars and a bit. I talked with him, told him I was broke and ruined; he said he would make it all right in the morning.” He wandered down to the wharf where he found a Faro table and lost the $140.

He returned to Santa Rosa with only a bit (12½ cents) in his pocket and immediately confessed having gambled away the school money. Buster was jailed until the next session of the court in April. There were four indictments against him. Apparently there was also talk of people storming the jail and lynching him.

When all this occurred, Buster was already in trouble for playing fast and loose with the county’s treasury. A year before he had “borrowed” $2,000 from the safe and loaned it to a man in San Francisco. When this was discovered he was indicted by the Grand Jury and due to appear in court in January, 1857 – which is why he hadn’t gone to Sacramento on New Year’s Day to make the big end-of-year deposit, as was customary for county treasurers. That indictment was quashed when it came before the court, and at the sentencing he went on at length about this 1856 crime and seemed miffed at having been arrested for embezzling that $2k; after all, by the time his case came to trial he intended to have paid it back with interest.

William Anderson Buster had no prior government experience; he was elected treasurer in 1855 as part of the “Settler’s Ticket” that swept the local elections that year. (His opponent was one of the town founders, Barney Hoen.) Aside from having a gambling addiction and/or being remarkably stupid, all we know about him is that he was 37 at the dawn of 1857 and with Margaret had four children: Harriet, John, Missouri (female) and Eliza. Years later he would say he was just a farmer, but I cannot find anything about what he was doing in Santa Rosa at the time. The only clue comes from his courtroom soliloquy where he volunteered, “Gentlemen, I have borrowed money of many of you, not by dollars but by hundreds and thousands, in my business, and paid you back honestly.”

The Buster trial lasted all of April, 1857. He was found guilty of embezzling state money (2½ years), county money (2½ years), and county school funds (8 years). He also paid a $300 fine for gambling.

His odd speech at his sentencing hearing (transcribed below) is worth reading in full, although much has been already excerpted here. Even skipping the part about how easily he was conned by Joe Nevill, Buster comes across as a rube.

He pleaded guilty to gambling, but insisted he did not steal the treasury money in the safe. Yes, he admitted, “I was in debt in my business, and wanted to borrow a thousand dollars,” but the money stolen included the $2000 and $88 interest from his “borrowing” crime the year before. The proof of his innocence, he argued, was he had bothered to repay that earlier theft when he was caught: “If I had been disposed to rob myself, I might have taken much more; and you all know I am in the habit of doing things by the wholesale.” In other words, I didn’t do it in 1857 – because I could have done it in 1856.

Gentle Reader may now pick up his/her jaw from the floor.

According to the Petaluma Journal, “The prisoner shed tears quite copiously during his remarks.” The court apparently ruled his terms were to run concurrently, so he was sentenced to eight years.

Unfortunately, nothing further appeared in the newspapers about the case against him. Yes, he confessed to “borrowing” money the year before and gambling away the school funds, but it wasn’t explained why he was convicted of embezzling the $14,439.13. Did the prosecutor show he lost it at card tables or tapped it for loans to himself and others, despite having been caught the previous year? One might expect juicy details of proven guilt would have appeared in the press, even though papers were few and far between in 1857 California.

The ease of the robbery – knowing where the key to the safe was and when the home would be empty – gives me reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Then a few months later, the Santa Rosa paper printed this:

It is well known that some eight or ten thousand dollars of the missing public moneys [sic] for the loss of which Wm. A. Buster is now serving a term of years in the State Prison, was abstracted from the county safe without any agency of his. Since that time, it has been a matter of wonder how certain men not more than sixteen miles from Santa Rosa, having no lucrative business, could become “men of leisure” and always have plenty of money.

The “men of leisure” remark was a swipe at Petaluma, as this was the beginning of the feud between Petaluma and Santa Rosa newspapers – but what was this about “it is well known” that Buster didn’t steal the money?

In 1860 and under a different editor, the Santa Rosa Democrat urged the governor to pardon Buster. “…There is no doubt but his temporary departure from the paths of rectitude is thoroughly cured, and we dare say, that a large majority of his old acquaintances, even here where his misdeeds were committed, would trust him to-day, as readily as they would men whose integrity has never been impeached.”

The warden at San Quentin gave him a week furlough (!) to visit his family in Santa Rosa, and later in 1860 he was pardoned. The family continued to live here for a few years – apparently next door to the notorious Otho Hinton – then moved to Anderson Valley. They ended up in the Los Angeles County town of Wilmington, where William Buster died in 1890.

The obl. Believe-it-or-not! epilogue to this story is that in 1859 the Petaluma Journal mentioned that treasurers in nine other counties had vanished with public funds. And at the exact same time in 1857 while Buster was awaiting his trial(s), the state treasurer Henry Bates was arrested for losing about $300,000. In Bates’ first trial there was a hung jury, followed by a second mistrial. As far as I’m able to tell, the only person in California who went to prison for stealing public money in those days was William A. Buster – who possibly did not steal it. Well, not all of it, anyway.

 

Robbery of the County Treasury.

W. A. Buster, Treasurer of Sonoma County, reports that the safe in which was deposited the public funds, was robbed some time during last Sunday Evening. Of the particulars of this affair, we are unadvised, other than by rumor. As near as we can get at the matter, it would appear that at the time of the robbery there was, or should have been. In the safe, from $13,000 to $14,000, all of which belonged to the State, excepting about $1,200. – That the robbery was discovered about 1 o’clock, A. M., Sunday morning, by two acquaintances of Mr. Buster’s whom he was lighting to their rooms, and that his attention was called to it by one of them remarking that the safe door was open. We further learn that the safe exhibited no evidence of force having been used upon it, but on the contrary went to show that it had been opened by a key.

Whoever committed the robbery was evidently perfectly familiar with the premises and state of finances. One day later, and they would have had dry picking, as Mr. Buster was to leave for Sacramento early on Monday morning to pay into the State Treasury the money belonging to the State.

Mr. Buster had offered a reward of five hundred dollars, for the apprehension of the robber and recovery of the money.

– Sonoma County Journal, January 23 1857

 

THE MISSING FUNDS — We cannot learn that any additional light has been thrown upon either the whereabouts of the funds missing from the County Treasury, or of the perpetrators of the robbery. Mr. Buster, we believe, has gone to Sacramento, probably with the view of getting the Legislature to release himself and bondsmen from the payment of the sum due the State. The Board of Supervisors meet on Monday next, when it is probable an additional reward will be offered for the detection of the robbers. We are also informed, that the County Attorney has given an instruction to the Sheriff, to retain in his hands, until further ordered, all moneys which may be paid in, belonging to the County.

– Sonoma County Journal, January 30 1857

 

The Late County Treasurer.

By reference to the Report of the Board of Supervisors, it will be seen that W. A. Buster, late Treasurer of Sonoma County, is a defaulter to the State to the amount of $17,263.98. Of this sum, $14,439.13 was money collected in this County, for State purposes, and paid over to him, to be paid by him into the State Treasurer’s hands. The remainder, with the exception of $29.75, is money drawn from the State School Fund, $2,795.10 being the proportionate amount due this County for school purposes. This money he drew from the State Treasury since the reported robbery of the County Treasury, but when called upon by the Board of Supervisors to make an exhibit of the same, he was unable to comply. How this money has been disposed of, remains to be proven.

The evidence that Mr. Buster was unlawfully appropriating the public moneys to private purposes, has been so strong from the time of his entering upon his official duties, that legal proceedings were instituted against him as early as October, 1856, at which time the Grand Jury found an indictment against him for the improper use of public funds. In the following December he was arrested on a bench warrant and held to bail in the sum of $3,000 to appear at the January term of County Court. From some informality, the indictment was quashed at the January term, but the case submitted to the Grand Jury which will be summoned previous to the setting of the April terms of the Court, and bail fixed in same amount. On the 5th last, his sureties surrendered him to the Sheriff, and he is now in prison awaiting his trial at the April term of Court.

Of the guilt or innocence of Mr. Buster we wish not to speak at this time. The feeling already existing against him, is strong. We would not add to this feeling by giving publicity to the thousand and one stories in circulation, lest the public mind might become prejudiced to such an extent as to render it difficult to obtain an impartial and unprejudiced jury to try him. He is now in the hands of the law, and no doubt justice will be meted out to him according to his deserts. If proven guilty of the offence charged, his punishment, according to the statutes of 1855, will be imprisonment in the State Penitentiary from one to five years, or a fine, discretionary with the Court.

Since his imprisonment Mr. Buster has sent in his resignation, and the Board of Supervisors have appointed Dr. J. HENDLEY of Santa Rosa, who is now acting as County Treasurer.

– Sonoma County Journal, February 13 1857

 

THE ROBBERY OF THE SONOMA TREASURY. — Some time since it was stated that Mr. Buster, the Treasurer of Sonoma county had been robbed of $13,000 of State and county funds. — The people in that section now generally believe that Mr. Buster robbed himself, as appears by the following from the Napa Reporter:

MR. BUSTER. — This County Treasury “busting” official, it in currently reported, went to the Capital to have his bonds cancelled, which he didn’t do, as far as we can learn. Report also says that he was paid the apportionment of the School Fund due Sonoma county, which he “bucked off” before reaching the locality of the county safe. He is now in the Santa Rosa jail, we understand. He’ll do to play second fiddle to the State Treasurer.

– Daily Alta California, February 16 1857

 

Wm. A. Buster, Late County Treasurer, was arraingned [sic] on Tuesday, and entered the plea of “not guilty” to two indictments, one for using and loaning County funds, and one for using and loaning State funds. His counsel, C. P. Wilkins, gave notice of a motion for a change of venue on the ground that the prisoner could not obtain a fair and impartial trial in Sonoma county.

Oliver Baileau, arraigned for branding cattle with intent to stal the same, was discharged – the jury rendering a verdict of “not guilty.”

An unsual number of persons have been in attendance. There is no apparent indication in regard to time of adjournment. Should Busters’ application for a change of venue be denied and his case tried at this term, the court will probably be in session during next week.

– Sonoma County Journal, April 10 1857

 

COURT OF SESSIONS — The case of the People vs. W. A. Buster charged with using and loaning State funds, is drawing its weary length to a close. On Saturday last the Court appointed Thomas Hood, elisor, to bring into Court, on Tuesday, 48 jurors. This duty Mr. H. performed. Out of the number the Court succeeded in getting a panel. The prosecution was commenced on behalf of the State, on Tuesday evening, and closed on Wednesday morning. The defence offered no testimony, but asked time to prepare instructions, which request was granted. The case was submitted to the jury on Wednesday evening, who, after a half hour’s absence, returned a verdict of “guilty.” – Sentence not passed at out latest date. On the charge of gambling, to which it will be recollected, Mr. Buster had plead guilty, the Court has fined the prisoner $300. On the charge for using and loaning County funds, he is yet to be tried. As order for the jury has been issued.

– Sonoma County Journal, April 24 1857

BUSTER SENTENCED. — Last Wednesday morning the Court passed sentence on W. A. Buster, found guilty of using and loaning State Funds. His sentence is thirty months imprisonment in the State Penitentiary. The venire issued last week for a Jury to try the prisoner of the charge of using and loaning County Funds, was returned into court on Wednesday. A panel has probably been selected [be]fore this. We learn that there is still another indictment against him – that of embezzling the School Money, upon which he is yet to be tried.

– Sonoma County Journal, May 1 1857

 

Defaulter Convicted. — W. A. Buster, the late defaulting Treasurer of Sonoma county, has been found guilty of trafficking in State funds; and has also been fined the sum of $300 for gambling part of the money away. He will shortly be tried for squandering the moneys of the county in the same way.

– Sacramento Daily Union, May 4 1857

 

COMMITTED. — Last Wednesday. Deputy Sheriff Greene passed through Petaluma, on his way to San Quentin, accompanied by the late treasurer of that county, W. A. Buster, who is about entering upon new duties in that institution for the next eight years.

– California Farmer and Journal of Useful Sciences, May 8 1857

 

The People vs. Wm. A. Buster

This trial which has occupied the Court of Sessions for the last four weeks, terminated last Saturday. There were four indictments against the Defendant – the first for permitting gaming, upon which he plead guilty, and was $300. The second, for using and loaning State Moneys, which came to his hands as Treasurer of Sonoma County, on a plea of not guilty and a verdict of guilty, he was sentenced to 2 1/2 years’ imprisonment. On the third, for using the moneys belonging to the County, he was found guilty and sentenced to 2 1/2 years’ imprisonment. – On the fourth, for embezzlement of School Moneys belonging to the County of Sonoma, he plead guilty, and was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment. On being called upon, before sentence in the last two cases, if he had any cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him, he said: –

“I wish to state to the people here how all this came about, and if I say anything incorrect, I want to be corrected. I don’t know that Mr. Wickersham, the District Attorney, has had any cause to do so, but I think he has not only prosecuted but persecuted me. In his argument to the Jury, he said that my attorneys had not even proven that I had previously sustained a good character. I was born in Tennessee, and have taught school about ten years of my life; and I defy any man to bring anything against my character up to the time these indictments were prosecuted; and I don’t want any disgrace cast upon my family.

In the early part of my official duties, I did not know that there was any exceptions taken. After I borrowed the $2000, testified by the high Sheriff, I started to Sacramento, on the 4th of January, 1856. I deposited the money at Sacramento, and went up into the mines on other business, and remained until the 16th, when I returned to Sacramento, and settled with the State Treasurer, and came down to San Francisco and loaned to Menefee $2000. When I came home I was surprised to hear that it was reported I had run away, and some of my securities had withdrawn – that it was known how much money there should be in the Treasury, and all the Scrip had been bought up a few to make a run on the Treasury – and I was to be raised right out of my boots! I met all the warrants presented, and was then easy until July ’56.

Gentlemen, I have borrowed money of many of you, not by dollars but by hundreds and thousands, in my business, and paid you back honestly. Now, as to the August report: I did make a previous report which the Board of Supervisors accepted, but did not publish, and I was censured, and also charged with not having made a report; and I had to make this report, going back and including my previous one, and am charged of using $2000 of the public money, which I had to raise to make up the amount of the August exhibit, which I shall neither admit or deny; but I think the District Attorney took a very ungentlemanly course to make it appear that I was delaying the Board of Supervisors and trying to borrow money to make my exhibit. It is not true; and they did not wait one day on me, but remained in session three days after on other business. The District Attorney did not read all the report.

Above what I exhibited with my report, there was sixteen or seventeen hundred dollars at that time paid into me by the Sheriff and that was all that could have been lost to the people if I had eat it up.

I had bought some county warrants; as I have been charged with one crime I might as well admit that. The new Board met to organize and I wanted them to do business; the old Board had ordered me to give a new bond in the sum of $40,000, which, under the excitement against me, was out of the question. I expected them to require me to make a full exhibit, and I was ready to do so. I was indicted in January, and had to be here, and could not go to Sacramento on the 1st of January, ’57; it was usual for other Treasurers to settle with the State any time during the month, and I did not think it was material. Some one reported that I was not going to Sacramento; God forgive him, for if I knew who it was I could not.

I was in debt in my business, and wanted to borrow a thousand dollars. I concluded on Saturday the 17th of Jan. to go to Sacramento on the following Monday. I was at the saloon on the evening of the 17th (Saturday) at 10 or 11 o’clock, playing cards for one thing or another. Treadwell (Jo.) and Russell went home with me to go to bed; they found the front door partly open and the safe partly open. I had gone round the back part of the house, and they called to me. I went round and all the money was taken out of the safe – God knows by whom, but I didn’t. That is the only thing for which I can make no showing excepting my acts.

If I had been disposed to rob myself, I might have taken much more; and you, all know I am in the habit of doing things by the wholesale. From the time I should have started to Sacramento up to the time the safe was robbed, I paid two thousand and eighty-eight dollars, and offered to pay more. Now, you will all agree with me, that any man who would have done this, (if he intended to steal) would have been a fool; but I could only deny the charge and give the above reason; and my best friends passed me by without speaking and thought me guilty, and I was almost driven to despair.

Sometimes I thought I would not go to Sacramento – Dr. Williams told me he heard I was afraid to go; I told him that I had rather die than be thought afraid to go; I don’t know what fear is. I went to Sacramento, and fell in with Jo. Nevill; some of you know who he is; and now I will relate the only thing I regret in this whole matter. I told Nevill what I wanted to get; (a relief bill passed) he went with me and seemed to know most all the members. Harrison and Taliaferro talked favorable; Edwards I did not see. Nevill seemed to be very kind, and done all he could for me, and we drank considerable with members of the Legislature.

Next morning I went to draw the School Money, and he helped me pack it up; and after I had deposited it, he said he was out of money and so was I and if we would take some of the money and go to a faro bank we could win expenses. I took out one hundred dollars – it was lost; we drank some brandy – it was good brandy; he insisted the stake was so small he could do nothing, and wanted me to increase it and he would certainly win. I did so until we had lost a thousand dollars. He swore by his right arm and the blood of his heart, that if he lost he knew where he could get the money and would pay me back.

We got aboard a boat and started for San Francisco. I felt so bad I could not sleep; he said he could not and would get up a game of poker, and make a sure thing for me to win. I gave him a twenty; he was to put up the cards so as to deal me a full; I suppose you know what a full is. I watched him deal; he took my cards from the bottom and the other man’s from the top – the other man bet along moderately for some time and then raised to four hundred and fifty dollars. I supposed he meant to bluff me, and proposed to let Jo. hold my hand until I went for the money, but he would not consent. I then sent Jo. for the money; when the money was up, I said I had three fives and two sixes – I will always recollect the hand; he showed four kings, and took the money – and then I found that Jo. was not acting fair with me, and I was then all out except what I had in my pocket, one hundred and forty dollars and a bit. I talked with him, told him I was broke and ruined; he said he would make it all right in the morning.

I felt as though I was gone in, and the next morning I went down on the wharf and had a great mind to throw the hundred and forty dollars in the Bay, for I knew that amount was no use to me; I went and bucked off the hundred and forty dollars and kept the bit. I had lost all confidence in Jo., and told him that he had ruined me; he told me not to go home; I told him by the Gods I would and let the people all know what I had done; he said he could not find the man he was to get the money from, but would get me the money and bring it up.

I came home and was loathe to tell it. Dr. Williams asked me if I had brought the School Money, and I said yes. Ogan wanted me to pay a school warrant, and I told him just how it was; and I was then charged all over town of stealing the School Money; and I suppose it was no better. I was then delivered over by my securities to the Sheriff, and had to go to jail, where I have been ever since.

Many reports were circulated against me, and I understand they threatened to take me out of the jail and hang me; all I could hear was through my family; no man could come, he was denied admission either by the Sheriff or Jailor. I don’t know which, nor do I care.

I was told I would be punished to the extent of the law, and I don’t believe there could have been a Jury in the county but what would commit me. I was without money and without counsel; I told C. P. Wilkins my situation, and he offered to do all he could for me; he was in bad health, and I asked Temple to assist; he said he could do me no good before this community, but he would assist all he could. I made an application for a change of venue, but was denied, and was advised to run away; I could have done so and been gone long ago, but I would rather hang than to acknowledge the crime by running away and thereby saddle it on my family.

I expect if I live, to serve out my term and come back here – for if I cannot live here. I cannot anywhere. I don’t make these remarks with the hope of influencing the Court; I want them to do their duty – appoint the time which they see cause to allot me, and I will go and try it. I have nothing more to say.”

The prisoner shed tears quite copiously during his remarks, and when he took his seat he covered his face with his hands and wept. The Court House was crowded to excess, but the strictest order prevailed.

– Sonoma County Journal, May 8 1857

 

PARDON ASKED FOR.

Margaret F. Buster, wife to Wm. A. Buster, given notice that she will apply to the Governor for the pardon of her husband, now an inmate of the State Prison, for the crime of embezzlement of the county and school funds of Sonoma county, and for using and loaning the funds of the State; also for using and loaning the funds of this county. The aggregate term of imprisonment imposed by the Court for these offences, is eight years. We learn that petitions to this effect are now in circulation for signatures.

However deeply we may, and do sympathize with the afflicted wife and children of the prisoner, we cannot so far forget our duty to society, as to thus early lend our aid in favor of the object prayed for. The character of the crime for which Mr. Buster is now incarcerated within the prison walls, has been, and still is, one of too frequent occurrence in California to permit this course on our part. Few indeed have been the cases of either County or State officials retiring from posts of trust, with an untarnished name. Many have been the evidences of peculaton or defalcation, on the part of men placed in positions of honor and trust; but few the convictions. Indeed, until within a few months past Justice has apparently withheld her hand, and the criminal has escaped merited punishment.

Though others equally guilty, and may be much more culpable, have been allowed to escape through the meshes of the law, and Mr. Buster alone occupies the prisoner’s cell, we cannot see that he should be thus early liberated. Scarce eight months of the eight years have yet expired. For the Governor to pardon the prisoner, under the circumstances, at this early day of his confinement, would, to say the least, be setting a bad example. There can be little or no doubt that a too free exercise of executive clemency, is pernicious in the extreme to the well being of society. If to the difficulty of conviction is to be added a ready pardon, we need not be surprised should crimes of every kind become of even more frequent occurrence. It is not the severity of law, but the certainty of its enforcement, that deters men from crime. While, therefore, humanity pleads for the liberation of a devoted husband and a kind parent, justice and the public good requires that the laws of our land be faithfully and impartially administered. But while we thus stand for the supremacy of law, let me not forget the demands of humanity, and if need be, let us all show our sympathy for the bereaved family, by more convincing proofs than mere words, or scrawls of pen and pencil.

– Sonoma County Journal, November 13 1857

 

Wm. A. Buster.

We last week called attention to the fact that Wm. A. Buster, formerly Treasurer of this county, and who is now in the State’s Prison, where he was sent for embezzling the public funds while in that office, was here on a visit to his family. He returned on Saturday last.

We have before had occasion to speak of the propriety of enforcing the remainder of Mr. Buster’s sentence — and as we are informed a Legislative committee will visit the State Prison soon, and that the case of Mr. Buster will be laid before that committee, with a view to his release prior to the expiration of his sentence, we deem it appropriate that we repeat those views. Our opinion, as heretofore expressed, is: that the Governor would be fully justifiable in interposing the pardoning power in his behalf; and we will endeavor to express as plainly as we can our reasons for that opinion.

While it is not contended even by his most interested friends that he was not guilty of the offense charged, those who know him best, even among those who are not his personal or political friends, do not pretend to ascribe to Mr. Buster a really depraved heart. We believe it is admitted by nearly all these, that he was led away by the circumstances that surrounded him, having lived the early part of his life in an humble, unpretending sphere, away from the follies and dissipations incident to life in towns, and particularly in that society composed of county officials, who are very liable to be flattered by the vicious, and tempted to dissipation by his most intimate associates. In fact he was a novice, wholly ignorant of the vices to which he was exposed, on entering upon his official career. He engaged in those vices and follies which we all see almost every day of our lives, not realizing that any harm was likely to grow out of his indulgences. He held the key of the county safe, and at the same time was allured with the prospects of wealth to be derived from speculations and gaming. he embarked in both; but it does not require a great stretch of the mind to divine how and wherein he must fail to cope with the more experienced and shrewder portion of mankind, whom he in this sphere had to contend with. He became, as he supposed, temporarily embarrassed, and used the public moneys in his keeping. We will not say he fully intended, and thought he would be able to replace this from his own funds; for these thoughts can bedemonstrated only by himself and his God, But so far as we have heard the expression of those who were acquainted with the circumstances, we believe all are impressed with this belief. This, we admit, is not a legal excuse for his conduct — neither should it prevent his punishment; but wo do think it should materially mitigate that punishment.

All know the theory upon which penalties for crimes is based. It is, first, to imprison the criminal, that the power to do harm may be placed out of his reach. Second, that the fear of punishment again shall in future deter him from crime, and thus reform the abandoned; and thirdly, an example to the depraved part of the world that if they are detected in similar crimes they will be punished in like manner.

In Mr. Buster’s case, the two first of these reasons are out of the question, so far as future punishment goes. There is no doubt but his temporary departure from the paths of rectitude is thoroughly cured, and we dare say, that a large majority of his old acquaintances, even here where his misdeeds were committed, would trust him to-day, as readily as they would men whose integrity has never been impeached. Even more, that the lesson he has already had, would have the effect to make him even scrupulous in his efforts to do right. Everything indicates this: He has a family — an interesting, and we may say a respectable family, with whom he wishes to reside. Were he a depraved, irredeemable outlaw, who cared not what part of the world he might be compelled to flee to, nor how soon he had to go, it would be different; he is trusted by the keepers of the Prison to visit his family, fifty miles off, without guard or bond — with no more than his own word and his attachment to that family — rather than leave which, he will return to the degrading bondage with which he suffers.

The man who will thus suffer affliction, with the hope of once more being called an honest man by those who have best know his short-cormings — who would prefer incarceration in the State Prison to abandonment of his family — is not at heart a bad man; and after the serious evidence ho has already had of the danger of crime — would be the last man in world again to violate the law.

We have but one more reason to give why he should be released. Other men, both before and since the development of his case, have proven in like manner, and even to greater extent, delinquent, but have uniformly escaped punishment. So generally has this been the case, that persistance in the continuation of his punishment has no terror to others. Men of more craft, but less real merit than he possesses, escape with impunity — laugh at the law, and call him stupid for allowing himself to be proven guilty. They attribute his conviction, and his punishment rather to his verdance, than to the excess of his crime.

Then every argument for the punishment of criminals, so far as he is concerned, fails. Holding these views of the matter, which we certainly do, we hope Governor Downey will take the very first opportunity to give Mr. Buster an entire legal pardon for his offense, and in doing so, we have good reason to believe he will receive the approbation of nine-tenths of this community.

– Sonoma Democrat, January 26 1860

 

PARDON BUSTER. — We are pleased to see so much interest taken in the pardon of this unfortunate man, as has of late been manifested by our citizens. We learn from good authority, that a petition has been forwarded to Governor Downey, signed by the proper officials of this County, asking his release, and hope soon to hear that it has been granted. There is no doubt but that the news of his pardon would be welcomed with gladness by a greater portion of our people.

– Sonoma Democrat, June 28 1860

 

We are pleased to announce that Gov. Downey has at last complied with the prayer of many citizens of Sonoma County, and pardoned Wm. A. Buster. It is our candid opinion, that the action of the Governor in pardoning Buster, will meet with the approval of two-thirds of the people of the County. Mr. Buster arrived home on Friday last.

– Sonoma Democrat, October 18 1860

Read More