ARMSTRONG GROVE SCANDAL

I don’t think it’s ever good when your name appears in front page headlines next to the words, “Ugly Scandal,” but it’s particularly rough when the newspaper article appears on the eve of your closing the deal of a lifetime. The person was Harrison M. LeBaron; the deal was the sale of Armstrong Grove to become a state park. The scandal was that LeBaron and the state senator from Santa Rosa were supposedly trying to rook taxpayers by grossly inflating the worth of those irreplaceable thousand year-old trees.

The cash value of Armstrong Grove and the nature of LeBaron’s private deal became hotly discussed topics in the 1909 Santa Rosa newspapers. Although dailies of that era rarely printed letters-to-the-editor, lengthy comments began appearing, sometimes two or more a day, sometimes with correspondence from still another person folded into a letter. Even more remarkable, these same letters appeared in both the morning Press Democrat and the evening Santa Rosa Republican – something I’ve not found before. These waters kept roiling for five weeks, making Armstrong Grove unquestionably the #1 local story of the year.

Some of the background was covered in an earlier post, but the need-to-know basics are such:

* THE ARMSTRONG ERA   The 440 acre woods were first owned by Col. Armstrong, who was one of the lumbermen who made a fortune clear-cutting the Redwood Empire of redwoods in the late 19th century. Armstrong apparently always thought of the grove as a showcase; as the Russian River resort scene was just launching in 1887, he discussed setting aside forty acres for a hotel with park land (the rest he was presumably going to log).

* BEGGING THE STATE TO TAKE IT   Strapped for cash in 1891, Armstrong offered to sell the grove to the state without luck (there was no state park system at the time). When he died in 1900, Armstrong tried to deed it to the state in his will, with the proviso that his heirs would act as trustees. The legislature balked, said to be because of the trustee provisions and also because of pressure from timber interests who hoped the valuable woods would now be sold. The property remained in the ownership of Armstrong’s children, Walter and Elizabeth (“Lizzie”).

* THE LeBARON ERA   In 1908, Harrison LeBaron struck a deal with Walter and Lizzie (more about that later). LeBaron controlled the Dairyman’s Coast Bank, which was the primary financial institution in west Sonoma county. The banker immediately announced he intended to chop down the woods and make a big profit – that is, unless the state would quickly agree to buy the property. State Senator Walter Price (R-Santa Rosa) vowed to present a bill that would purchase the grove, but only if LeBaron would please agree to delay logging long enough to get the state to approve. 

Senator Price produced a very nice illustrated booklet about the grove for his fellow legislators, and as the state senators and assemblymen returned to Sacramento for the 1909 session, it looked like a deal was in the bag for the state to purchase the land for $125,000 (equivalent to about $3.25 million today). Then the article appeared on the front page of the San Francisco Call.

The Call was San Francisco’s great muckraking newspaper, so it wasn’t unusual to find it featuring a story about a crooked politician. But anyone who read past the headlines and the illustration of Senator Price’s semi-disembodied head floating in front of trees found the article was charging that Price and LeBaron were in cahoots to sell the land for 3x its true value. Even more scandalous, in the eyes of the Call, was that LeBaron didn’t own the grove at all – he had only paid the Armstrong heirs a few hundred bucks for an option that expired before the end of the year. If the state bought the woods, Lizzie and Walter would split $40k, and LeBaron (and Sen. Price?) would walk away with a cool $85,000 profit for little risk.

A followup article in the next day’s Call backed off from some of the earlier claims. LeBaron’s profit wouldn’t be so obscene after all, the paper now reported, as Walter and Lizzie’s share was $40 thousand each, and LeBaron had already paid Walter in full. The newspaper also cooled down the hysteric tone; LeBaron was now “the patriotic citizen” and there was no further suggestion of a hidden arrangement between Price and himself. LeBaron was called to Sacramento the same day as the first Call article appeared. The Call article was also wrong about LeBaron’s current asking price. Over a dinner with members of the assembly’s forest committee a few days earlier, LeBaron had been questioned about his deal and forced to lower the price to $100,000. Still, a committee of senators and assemblymen would junket to Sonoma County that coming weekend to see the grove for themselves.

Letters and editorials immediately began appearing in the Santa Rosa papers contradicting the Call articles as well as other letter writers. Armstrong Grove was worth the original asking price; it was worth more; it wasn’t even worth $40,000; LeBaron did own the property outright, but hadn’t paid very much for it; LeBaron had paid top dollar for options on the land and would hardly make any profit.   

There were too many letters to transcribe them all, but stumptown’s founding father George Guerne wrote in support of LeBaron and suggested that should spare himself grief by logging the woods, which he thought had a value of $128,000. Guerne’s estimate was disputed by Andrew Markham, another of the old-time timber barons. That lumberman/banker said the grove was worth about $85,000, and by the way, LeBaron would be making an obscene profit because he had only paid $30,000 for most of the land, plus a small option on the remainder owned by Armstrong’s daughter. Markham said he knew these details because Armstrong’s son, Walter, owed him money at the time, which he paid off by the sale of his share of the grove to LeBaron.

 In a letter that appeared in both papers, LeBaron wrote that he wasn’t about to reveal any details about his dealings with the Armstrong heirs. A few days later, he forwarded a letter from Walter Armstrong:

“You are having a time of it with the ‘kickers and knockers,’ I see by the papers. If I can do you any good let me know.

“Markham does not know it all be any means. I did owe him some money and I paid it. He was sore because he did not get the ‘Grove’ on a mortgage, and because I paid up the loan he felt sore…Sam Wright [who had written a letter quoting Markham] has about as much right to know what I and my sister received on that as he would have to know who President Taft put in his cabinet.” 

THE UNDISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN FROM SANTA ROSA

The same day that State Senator Walter F. Price and other legislators returned from their junket to Armstrong Woods, he introduced his only piece of legislation that actually made it into law: The infamous eugenics law, which allowed for the forced sterilization of anyone in a state hospital or prison and specifically anyone at the California Home for the Care and Training of Feeble-Minded Children in Glen Ellen.

Walter Fitch Price (1858-1946) was a Republican who served two terms in the state assembly and one undistinguished term in the state senate from 1907-1911, where he failed to win passage of the Armstrong Grove bill as well as an Audubon Society-sponsored bill to crack down on illegal hunting. He was a back-bencher in the pocket of Southern Pacific, according to California Weekly, a progressive magazine: “a man who can be counted on to do any political work that the Herrin organization wants done” (William Herrin was the railroad’s top lobbyist).

In his hometown of Santa Rosa, however, he was an important player as the Republican party became ascendant. He was accused of being among the four political “bosses” or Santa Rosa by the reformers who sought to oust the “Good Old Boy” faction in the 1908 city elections. That August the San Francisco Call also claimed Price ran the Republican machine in Sonoma County along with ex-Senator E. F. Woodward (a friend of James Wyatt Oates, by the way). When he wasn’t in Sacramento he could probably be found at the Price & Silvershield office that sold real estate and insurance. His partner, Henry Silvershield, moonlighted as city assessor.

Price also had a number of political patronage jobs. After his tenure in the state assembly, he was appointed as a Deputy Tax Collector of Internal Revenue, a position that caused some discussion when he was elected  senator, as he legally couldn’t hold a federal and state job at the same time. While senator, he was appointed to the Expert State Board of Examiners. Prior to the 1908 elections, Price was to be nominated as the Collector of Internal Revenue for the Northern District of California. This was a job with enormous opportunities for patronage, as the Collector could hire as many Deputies as he desired and review cases of tax evasion that could be forwarded to the Treasury Department for prosecution. “The man with the strongest political strength will be appointed,” the Call reported. “The victor, it is declared, must be a man who is in a position to rally a large force to the support of the republican party next fall.” It appears that Price didn’t get the post (but I can’t be 100% certain), but that he was considered for the job by Republican party leaders shows he had significant political clout.

LeBaron’s own letter blamed all opposition to the deal on “Democrats and Doodle Dees” operating out of “political spite and prejudice toward Senator Price or myself or both,” while reminding everyone that the grove was valuable because it was one of the few stands of old-growth left. He named a couple of similar properties that were now logged out. “As to the Markham tract,” LeBaron wrote,” there have been different mills upon it and there may now be some dams by the mill site, but there is no lumber by a damned sight.”

Markham exploded. “Mr. LeBaron, you are all wrong and I am afraid you are disturbed,” he wrote in a letter the very next day. His 150 acres of virgin timber land was untouched and not for sale, he insisted, and furthermore, he wouldn’t accept Armstrong Grove if it were offered as a gift. “You had better not use my name in this matter again. I do not care whether you, or Price, or any of the real estate men makes a hundred thousand or five hundred thousand, and I hope you will die a very rich man.”

Wow.

Far less was questioned about Senator Price’s role in the deal. He immediately offered a statement to the SF Call: “I am not, never was, and never will be financially interested in the Armstrong grove…” But as pointed out in an op-ed from the hyper-partisan Press Democrat, the Republican senator was not accused of having a personal investment; “It has by inference been charged, however, and publicly, that he is financially interested in securing the passage of a bill authorizing its purchase by the state.” In other words, there might have been an understanding that if the bill passed, LeBaron would make a generous campaign contribution, offer a zero-interest loan from his bank, or something similar.

The PD also observed that Price had been working unusually hard to achieve passage of this bill. Besides producing a costly illustrated brochure, he had solicited endorsements from civic groups and clubs to demonstrate he had strong local support. “It does not necessarily follow that there was anything wrong about this; but in view of the conspicuous activity displayed by Senator Price in working up public sentiment on the proposition he naturally laid himself open to some criticism besides very materially weakening his right to claim that he introduced his bill solely because of the [e]ndorsement given the project in this country.”

But maybe Price did have his fingers in the pie after all. As mentioned in the earlier post, an article four months earlier in the Santa Rosa Republican had stated, “Senator Walter F. Price has secured an option on the Armstrong Woods, recently purchased by Hon. H. M. LeBaron…Mr. LeBaron has entered into an agreement with Senator Price on the matter.” If accurate, that clearly sounds as if there was indeed a straight-forward (but probably illegal) investment deal between the two. Too bad the muckrakers at the Call didn’t know about that bombshell.

The State Senate approved purchase on Feb. 23, almost three weeks after the controversial article appeared in the Call. The bill went to the governor’s desk awaiting his signature. And there it died at the end of the session, an unsigned pocket veto by Governor Gillett, a Republican.

The future of Armstrong Grove again went into limbo. LeBaron died in 1914, and his eldest son joined with Lizzie in making a new sales pitch, this time to the county. A tax measure was placed on the 1916 ballot and endorsed by both newspapers, Luther Burbank, and conservationists around the state. It passed, with a selling price of $80,000. Adjusted backwards to 1909 dollars, the cost was exactly half of LeBaron’s original asking price. Never has the county had such a deal since.

 

NOTE: Two of the 1909 articles below use the colloquial phrase, “nigger in the woodpile.” It may have originated in the 1850s as a reference to hiding escaped slaves on the Underground Railroad, but by the Lincoln presidency, it referred to there being a hidden purpose in a proposed law. Although offensive today, the articles are transcribed here exactly as they appeared in the papers. The goal of this journal is to provide an unvarnished look at early 20th Century Sonoma County as viewed through its newspapers, where racist terms routinely were used to ridicule people of color (although that’s not exactly the case in this instance). To downplay or outright censor the casual racism that appeared in these “family papers” would be to whitewash the unpleasant aspects of our history. -je



A committee of legislators inspect Armstrong Grove, Feb. 7, 1909
Photograph courtesy Sonoma County Library

PROMOTERS ASK STATE FOR PROFIT
Ugly Scandal Threatened in the Legislature Over Bill to Purchase Armstrong Grove
Deal to Preserve Big Trees is Urged by Senator on Sentimental Grounds
President of Dairyman’s Bank of Valley Ford Stands to Clear $85,000
Owners Willing to Sell for $40,000 and Option Will Expire With Session

An ugly scandal is threatened in the state legislature when the bill for the purchase of the Armstrong grove of big trees in Sonoma county comes up for final consideration. The measure is fathered by Senator Walter F. Price, and while its passage has been urged on sentimental grounds, it develops that its promoters stand to clear $85,000 on the deal. The grove can be purchased for $40,000. The state has been asked to pay $125,000. The property is assessed for $12,500.

Between the present owners and the state stands H. M. le Baron [sic], president of the Dairyman’s Bank of Valley Ford in northern Marin county [sic]. Le Baron has an option on the property for $40,000. He demands $125,000 and has interested Senator Price in his scheme. Price has been extremely active in behalf of the measure. In fact, he has organized “sentiment” in his county through the city authorities and chambers of commerce of Healdsburg, Cloverdale, Sebastopol and other cities in that district.

Big Profit Involved

Price has not give publicity to the fact that his friend Le Baron stands to make a cool profit of $85,000 at the expense of the state. Le Baron assumes an air of indifference and says he is not eager to sell even at the price named. Be that as it may, it is perhaps more than a coincidence that Le Baron’s option runs “until the end of the session of the legislature.”

Before he went to Sacramento Senator Price made a tour of Sonoma county and was instrumental in organizing meetings at which resolutions were adopted recommending that the state purchase the grove. Very soon after the session opened Price introduced his bill. It is now pending.

In some quarters there was a disposition to doubt the valuation assumed by Price and an investigation was begun. It was not long before it became known that Le Baron has merely an option on the tract and that he had instituted an advertising campaign in furtherance of the measure.

Capitalized Sentiment

Then came the revelation that the astute banker from Valley Ford had capitalized sentiment with a view to an $85,000 profit. His unique investment was predicated upon the prospect of a gain of something over 200 percent, and this without the outlay of more than a few hundred dollars.

The grove belongs to Walter Armstrong and Mrs. Elizabeth Armstrong, his sister, and it is from them that Le Baron has secured his option. He paid $400 for it, and has made it doubly certain by placing a deed to the property in escrow. Le Baron evidently was not inclined to take any chances, for with his deed safe in a Santa Rosa bank, his friend Senator Price, was busy in Sacramento lining up the members of both houses in favor of the deal.

Death Prevented Gift

The grove, which comprises 400 acres of beautiful redwoods, was owned originally by Colonel Armstrong, a pioneer and father of the present holders of the tract.  Colonel Armstrong had frequently said that he intended that the wonderful trees should be preserved. He had made plans to deed the park to the county or the state, but died before he was able to carry out his intentions.

Upon his death the grove passed to his son, Walter Armstrong, and his daughter, Mrs. Elizabeth Jones. They too, desired that it should be preserved. An agreement was made by which Mrs. Jones held title to 205 acres and her brother 195 acres.

Some 18 months ago Walter Armstrong decided to take up his residence in Los Angeles and entered into an agreement to sell his portion of the tract to Le Baron under certain conditions. Recently Mrs. Jones gave Le Baron an option on her part of the tract on the condition that it should go to the state and be forever preserved. A deed was drawn up and placed in escrow in the Exchange Bank of Santa Rosa.

Small Sums for Option

For the option Le Baron paid Armstrong and his sister each $200 or $400 in all. He agreed further to pay for the park in case he decided to purchase a total of $40,000 or $20,000 to Armstrong and a like amount to Mrs. Jones. The option was drawn up to run until the end of the session of the legislature. Under the terms of the option given by Mrs. Jones it appears that Le Baron has the right to sell only to the state of California.

As soon as the thrifty banker had gone through these preliminaries he began his campaign to unload on the state at an $85,000 profit. Senator Price covered the county and Le Baron got busy in his own behalf.

Le Baron does not deny the facts. He simply says that he does not care particularly to sell to the state. He evidently overlooks the fact that his option specifies that he must sell to the state.

“Understanding” Denied

“There is no understanding with any one on this matter,” said Le Baron. “I would like to see this grove preserved, but I would much rather that the state would not purchase it for $125,000, as I can get more for it for the lumber. The grove will make fine lumber, and as there is now a scarcity of redwood I could dispose of it easily to great advantage.”

At her home in Cloverdale MRs. Elizabeth Jones confirmed the reports as to the deal as far as she knew them. She said that she desired to see the grove preserved and had given an option to Le Baron on the express condition that it be sold only to the state. For further facts Mrs. Jones referred to her attorney, John T. Campbell.

Attorney Campbell was not impressed by the size of Le Baron’s prospective profit. He said he believed the grove to be worth $250,000, but failed to explain why with that knowledge he had allowed his client to give an option on her half interest for $20,000. At Campbell’s valuation Mrs. Jones should have received $125,000.

Attorney Talks of Risk

“Mr. Le Baron knew when he went into the matter,” said Campbell, “that there would be expenses for advertising, awakening sentiment, and for examination and other things which would cost something. He figured the cost and then added something for the risk and trouble involved before fixing the price at which he was willing to dispose of the property.”

A few years ago the property was cruised and a report made that for timber purposes it was not worth much more than $20,000. There is a vast stand of redwoods, but the trees are of the variety that requires the most expensive machinery.

There is a decided sentiment throughout the state in favor of the preservation of these wonders of nature. In fact, no people have been quicker than those of California to extend a protecting arm toward the forests which have become famous the world over. The Armstrong grove is recognized as one of the most picturesque in the state, but the attempt to hold up the state for a vast profit for its purchase will come as a shock to those who were earnestly working for the measure in the belief that its promoters were actuated by a laudable sentiment and not be a commercial consideration.

– San Francisco Call, February 3, 1909
NEWSPAPER DOES INJURY
Made Eroneous [sic] Statements About Armstrong Grove

A great injustice was done to Sonoma county and the State at large by the publication in a metropolitan morning paper of this date of an article purporting to be the facts related to the Armstrong Grove purchase by the State. A bill has been introduced by Senator Price asking for an appropriation of $125,000 for the purchase of Armstrong Grove. The original bill as introduced in the Assembly also asked for a like amount. Later a conference was held between Senator Price and Assemblyman Whitney in which the facts of the proposed measure were carefully gone over. It was discovered that the appropriation asked for was too high. Mr. LeBaron was called to the capital, and after much persuasion consented to sell the tract for $100,000. The bill as originally filed went up to the Forestry Committee. … A full investigation of the real value of the tract. based on facts show that Mr. LeBaron has an option on one-half of the tract from Mrs. Jones, for $40,000. The assumption is, and cannot be justly controverted, that he agreed to pay an equal amount to the other heir, that would make the amount of Mr. LeBaron’s pledge reach $80,000. The bill provides for State payments on an installment plan, leaving it up to Mr. LeBaron to pay interest on the large amounts of capital required for the term of payments. This will easily bring the expenditure, with the other necessary expenses, as the passing of the abstract, and advertising, to approximately $90,000. On this proposition Mr. LeBaron stands, and doubtful too, to make $10,000; not more than any real estate dealer would ordinarily make on a transaction of this magnitude…
J. M. ALEXANDER

– Santa Rosa Republican, February 4, 1909
THE ARMSTRONG WOODS

The Call’s story regarding the proposed sale of the Armstrong Woods appears to be a strange jumble of fiction and fact…As near as we have been able to ascertain, Mr. LeBaron some time ago purchased Walter Armstrong’s interest in the grove outright, paying therefor in one for or another about $40,000. Later, he secured an option from Mrs. Lizzie Armstrong Jones on her half of the property, agreeing to pay $45,000 for the same, said option running only until the adjournment of the present session of the legislature and being admittedly given with the express idea of furthering the sale of the combined properties to the state. According to the terms of the bill introduced by Senator Walter F. Price to provide for its purchase, the cost of the property o the state is to be $125,000. This leaves a difference, or profit, or percentage, or whatever one is pleased to call it, of $40,000 instead of $85,000 as stated by the Call.

We are hardly prepared to say that $40,000 is too much for a private citizen, laying no claims to patriotic motives, to make on a deal of this character and magnitude. Nor are we prepared to say that $125,000 is too much for the state to pay for the property in question. Considering the use to which it is to be put, and the further fact that such bits of accessible virgin redwood forest are none too plentiful, the probabilities are that the Armstrong Woods are worth every cent the state is being asked to set aside for their purchase.

But $40,000, or $4,000, or $4000, or $40, or forty cents, is too much for a public servant to make on such a deal, or any other deal through graft.

Senator Price has practically been charged by the Call with grafting or attempting to graft on this proposition.

If the facts are as we have them, the only point to be considered seems to be whether or not the very conspicuous interest taken by Senator Price in the matter is personal or impersonal. If his hands are clean, and if all the profit on the deal is to go to the man backing the project, we are frank to say that we fail to see anything in the matter so far brought out that justifies public opposition to the bill. From the public standpoint, it will be unfortunate indeed if the plan to secure this wonder-spot of Nature should be defeated by misapprehension on this point, or unjustly.

It seems to be up to Senator Walter F. Price, patriot and reformer, to make the next move. For his own as well as for his pet project’s sake, he should make his position plain and set himself straight before the people if he can.

– Press Democrat editorial, February 4, 1909
THAT NIGGER IN THE ARMSTRONG WOOD PILE

The great Armstrong Woods scandal yarn published in the San Francisco Call last Wednesday and hastily amended the following issue, has so pitifully petered out that to make any further reference to it is like respanking the baby or hitting the house cat another swat. What a lovely story it was! A bee-u-tee-ful story! Red hot off the bat. According to it H. M. LeBaron of this county is unloading a patch of redwood trees on the pee-pul of the State of California for $125,000, a clear gain to the prize real estate man of $85,000. Senator Walter F. Price of Sonoma county is engineering the nice little deal through the legislature.

Around the country a few readers thought they saw this alleged nigger in the Armstrong Wood-pile and were interested in the tale, but most of the Call’s readers saw the cap-and-bells in the story. If the managing editor of that journal had not been so carried away with the beauty of its phraseology and its commercial value as a “story,” he would have noted in time that the alleged amount of the “graft” was too huge, too unwieldy to handle and that the tale was over-colored, over-written. As evidence that he did notice the errors, the following issue of the paper contained an amendment in which was added $40,000 to the sums Mr. LeBaron must pay the Armstrongs for the 400-acre tract of redwoods. This lowered the “graft” from $85,000 to $45,000 and rubbed several coats of black off the conspirators. This amendment is not enough, and the fact that the paper has changed its statement on the principal point has caused the public to lose faith in its “news.” Moreover, H. M. LeBaron is not rated as a dishonest man, nor is W. F. Price believed to be a rascal or a fool. Neither of the men are expected to be found in a transparent “get rich quick” scheme that was reported to transfer $85,000 from $125,000 to their pockets in a minute.

The price which the State is asked to pay for the Woods is $100,000, and not $125,000. The industrious political enemies–both lay and editorial–of Senator Price cannot get away from the bigger figure. To keep the argument alive it must stay at $125,000. Mr. LeBaron dropped $25,000, though he doubtless would have preferred the larger amount, and is there any real estate dealer in this highly moral burg who would not? Now the people of the State of California and the people of the County of Sonoma (even if Price’s Sonoma county friends write “red hot stories” to city sensational papers denouncing him and his work) will get the splendid grove of sequoia for a play ground forever and forever more. Here is another argument: Mr. LeBaron paid Walter Armstrong $45,000 for that heir’s share, and with the $40,000 he must pay Mrs. Lizzie A. Jones for her portion of the tract, if he follows up his option, he will be out $85,000 instead of $40,000, as reported Wednesday. This leaves his putative profit $15,000 instead of $85,000 (vide city paper) and $40,000 (vide local paper). Lord, but it does take a heap of instruction to get some newspapers on the right track. However, if those journalistic opponents of the Armstrong Woods reservation proposition keep on scaling down the amount of alleged graft at the present rate of progress, by day after tomorrow they will have H. M. LeBaron paying the State $40,000 or $85,000 to take the block of trees off his hands. Moreover, if the sale is made, he must wait for his money, which will come to him in installments, causing him an expense in interest on the investment. There will be other expenditures to be made which will perceptibly cut down that so-called graft to an ordinary profit. The Press Democrat, a journal published in this city and county, and whose conservativeness on the subject is marked, says editorially:

“Considering the use to which it is to be put, and the further fact that such bits of accessible virgin redwood forest are none too plentiful, the probabilities are that the Armstrong Woods are worth every cent the state is being asked to set aside for their purchase.”

So, the nigger in the Armstrong Wood-pile turns out to be only the chirp of a juvenile cricket. Nobody has seen the cricket, but one person heard him and several persons who did not hear the vocal insect, told what they would have heard the cricket say, if they had heard the cricket say anything.

The end of this poor attempt to dig a scandal out of the proposition to preserve from destruction the grand trees of the Armstrong Woods near Guerneville, reminds me of the fate of the ambitious skunk that backed up against an approaching train. After the cards had passed all that remained between the rails at that spot was a deficit and a disagreeable smell. TOM GREGORY

– Santa Rosa Republican, February 5, 1909

PRICE AND HIS STATEMENT

A great deal of talk has been occasioned by the publication of the Call’s article dealing with the proposed purchase of Armstrong Woods by the state, and Senator Walter F. Price has issued the following statement in reference to his position in the matter:

“I am not, never was, and never will be financially interested in the Armstrong grove to the extend [sic] of one penny, and insinuations that I have introduced this measure on such a motive are unjust and not founded in fact. The people of my district wanted the grove preserved and it was because of their indorsement [sic] that I introduced the measure. I have no positive knowledge of Mr. LeBaron’s dealings in obtaining possession of the grove, but I know that he must have paid at least $80,000 for the property. I was one of the legislators who stood out against him when we were conferring on the price, and made him come down to $100,000.”

It is unfortunate that Senator Price is not more specific. Nobody has charged that he is financially interested in Armstrong grove. It has by inference been charged, however, and publicly, that he is financially interested in securing the passage of a bill authorizing its purchase by the state. If such is not the case, Senator Price ought to say so–and prove it, if such a thing be possible. He says he introduced his bill “because of the indorsement…” given the project by the people of this district. Does he refer to the various resolutions passed here by civic and fraternal bodies? It is no secret that in most instances they were introduced at Senator Price’s personal solicitation. In more than one case the resolutions were personally written and prepared by that gentleman. It does not necessarily follow that there was anything wrong about this; but in view of the conspicuous activity displayed by Senator Price in working up public sentiment on the proposition he naturally laid himself open to some criticism besides very materially weakening his right to claim that he introduced his bill solely because of the “indorsement” given the project in this country.

Senator Price says he has “no positive knowledge of Mr. LeBaron’s dealings in obtaining possession of the grove.” He feels very sure, however, that Mr. LeBaron “must have paid at least $80,000 for the property.” Perhaps it would have been better had Senator Price posted himself on the subject. He then could have discussed the matter more intelligently and convincingly. Senator Price is not usually backward in such matters. As a general thing he is fairly familiar with the details of anything happening in his vicinity. His bashfulness in this instance held him back at a most inopportune time. Positive information on the subject of how Mr. LeBaron secured possession of Armstrong grove is what the public is demanding now, and somebody ought to be able to supply this information. If Senator Price is unable to do so, he must not blame the people for thinking it strange. He is the recognized spokesman for the measure, and should have fortified himself with the facts, and ought to be able to supply them, whether he is or not.

While Senator Price finds himself compelled to plead ignorance as to some of the important facts in connection with his principal bill. The Press Democrat believes it is able to supply them. We are in receipt of some later information which we believe to be absolutely authentic and which states that the final price agreed upon between Mr. LeBaron and Walter Armstrong for the latter’s half of the grove was $30,000. This was when the option was replaced by an actual bill of sale. The original option was for $40,000. If our latest information is correct, of this purchase price of $30,000, only $10,000 has actually been paid. This point is immaterial, however, for the purchaser has obligated himself to pay the balance in two equal installments and nobody will dispute the fact that his obligation is good. The option secured from Mrs. Lizzie Armstrong Jones is for $45,000, and on this nothing has been paid, if we except a possible nominal sum put up to hold the option. On an actual expenditure of $10,000, then, Mr. LeBaron, with the assistance of Senator Price, is swinging a $100,000 sale to the state, the latter figure being the one now agreed on as a price for the property. The cost will be $75,000 and the profit $25,000.

There is not necessarily anything wrong about a proposition of the above character. Many a sale of even greater magnitude and promising far more profit is swung on less money. But why not come out and [illegible microfilm – probably ‘admit the details’]? Hardly anyone will contend that the property is not worth the price now asked for it–that is, to the state and for the purpose to which it is to be put. With the amount of profit to be made, the public is not particularly concerned, providing it is legitimate and is applied to no questionable ends. The people of this county, particularly, are anxious to see the Armstrong property secured by the state and turned into a public park. They fully realize all that it would mean, both to them and to the state generally. There is not desire here to block the proposition. Instead, it is just the other way. So much has been said on the subject of graft, however, that some definite assurances that there will be no graft, will have to be forthcoming. If Senator Price cannot supply the kind of information wanted, perhaps Mr. LeBaron can.

Speak up, Mr. LeBaron!

– Press Democrat editorial, February 5, 1909

AMONG THE BIG SEQUOIA IN THE ARMSTRONG WOODS
Legislators Come and See the Trees Sonoma Wants Preserved

The legislative party from the State capital arrived in this city Saturday night, paid a visit of inspection to the Armstrong Woods near Guerneville on Sunday morning and returned to Sacramento on the afternoon train of that day. The time was necessarily limited to a few hours, but the travelers saw even in that brief period that the salvation and reservation of that last stand of splendid trees should now be assured the people of the State of California. Said one member of the party on his return from the grove, “Every statement, every argument spoken or written by the friends of the measure is true. The question of what the tract of trees has been worth, or what it may be worth now to any private party, or what the present owners may have paid for it, is a woeful begging of the whole question. We believe the Armstrong Woods as a public park for all time are worth the amount asked in the bill.”

[… several legislators compliment the forest and the area …]

Another gentleman said, “The time is passing away when ‘anything’ can be worked through a legislature. The people are demanding that their representatives make good. The public evils that have been blighting the land must go. The ‘sack’ that used to swing through the capitol during the sessions is either not there now, or it swings very low. We are all Missourians and the man with a measure must show us. The race track bill went through because its opponents had against it as argument only spiteful and peevish abuse for its champions. It did not make the poolseller less a blackleg because a clergyman said he was such. And behind the measure were the people of California, and it was so ordered.”

[..]

Senator H. M. Hurd of Los Angeles, said if they had the Armstrong Woods in the “Southland,” they would not only preserve them, but they would exhibit the trees to eastern tourists as Burbank creations.

Sunday morning the special train of several coaches carried the entire company of local people and visitors towards Guerneville. A transfer was made around a landslide at Eaglenest and the passengers were soon in the famous Sonoma timber belt. El Rio Russian, swollen to the draught of a battleship, was dashing violently to the sea, as if to show the legislators that she was a navigable stream for other than steam launches and salmon. The hospitable people of Guerneville were ready for the party and seventy-five strong they turned out in their carriages and carried the visitors to the place where the grand trees that Colonel Armstrong so long guarded from the destroyer, stand in their majesty. It was an April-like day–cloud and sunshine over the forest. After the light shower, the golden light falling down through the green boughs gilding the raindrops on the foliage and bronzing the red shafts of the kingly sequoia–noble columns in this temple of God. Through the woody corridors the visitors wandered, voicing their admiration and commending the spirit that has moved the people of the State to preserve these matchless things. From Luther Burbank delving down in the long hidden secrets of seed and pollen, they harked back to the day when the Almighty said let green things appear on the earth. Did these then in their obedience to the Voice spring from the newly created soil? After the centuries shall they now pass away?

Guerneville Entertains

After being caught and cameraed by Photographer John Ross in that splendid forest gallery–and made to look how small a statesman is even beside a tree–the party returned to town and found in the Masonic hall the ladies of Guerneville awaiting with tables spread. And the solons proved to be good trenchermen. “It was not a salad and sandwich spread nor a smart luncheon,” said a hungry man, “but a dinner, a mother cooked dinner; one of the best I ever got loose at. And the waitresses were perfection. If Guerneville wasn’t so far away from Sacramento, I;d try to dinner there every day of the session.”

The party returned to Santa Rosa in the afternoon and later boarded their train for the capital.

The legislature visitors were Senator W. F. Price, Sonoma county…

TOM GREGORY.

– Santa Rosa Republican, February 8, 1909
INTERESTED IN THE REDWOODS
Mr. Cnopius Realized Possibilities Years Ago

Lewis C. Cnopius, the well known owner of Camp Vacation, has been interested in the redwood section of that vicinity for more than twenty years. His ability to see into the future foretold to him the possibilities of that beautiful section as a summer resort, and for the purpose of establishing summer homes there for the purpose of establishing summer homes there for the populace of this vicinity and the cities about the bay. With that vision of the future he invested in that section, and his property is among the most valuable in that vicinity.

In going through some of his private papers recently he found a letter from Colonel J. B. Armstrong, the owner of the Armstrong Woods, written in answer to an inquiry from Mr. Cnopius and dated October 2, 1887. In it Colonel Armstrong spoke of the idea he had in mind, and which he attempted to carry out at one time, regarding the big redwood trees of that section becoming a state park, and which is now before Governor James N. Gillett for his signature. The letter has the following to say regarding the matter:

“Your information respecting my forty acre grove of redwoods being set aside for a park is correct. Also that five acres will be deeded in fee simple to the party who will erect a building for a place of resort.

“The forest will remain untouched by the hand of man for all time, except to bring down from the mountain of water of a large spring for a fountain.

“There will be no restriction on the use of the park for public resort–except that it shall not be a camp ground, for permanent occupation might lead to injury done the timber. It is very beautiful in its present natural state, with immense trees and slopes and glades equal to the finest landscape gardening.”

Mr. Cnopius is especially anxious to have the Governor sign the bill preserving the redwoods to posterity, for he knows the value of those trees and the tract of land, and what an incentive they would provide to attract visitors to this section and country.

– Santa Rosa Republican, April 19, 1909

Read More

THERE ARE ANARCHISTS EVERYWHERE

No anarchists were in 1908 Santa Rosa, but it seemed like they were under rocks everywhere else in America that spring as new incidents of terrorism kept roiling through the headlines. If you read the Press Democrat along with one of the San Francisco newspapers, here’s what you knew:

The terror spree began late February in Denver, when an anarchist gunned down a Catholic priest during mass. A few days later, it was reported nationwide that “Denver police are working on theory of a plot,” in part because a witness saw “two foreigners, apparently Italians, at the church, one of whom pointed out the clergyman.” Police discovered that the Italian killer was part of a gang of forty anarchists who had recently come to America, and men in six other cities were part of the plot.

On the very same day as the priest’s funeral, a young man rang the doorbell of George Shippy, Chicago’s chief of police. Shippy was immediately suspicious; the mayor had just banned famed anarchist Emma Goldman from speaking in Chicago, and authorities expected retaliation. The police chief grabbed the visitor and ordered his wife to search for weapons. A scuffle resulted and the chief’s adult son and chauffeur raced into the room. Shots were fired, and the son and driver were wounded. The visitor was struck by six bullets and soon died. Police quickly linked him to an anarchist group and a plot to also assassinate the mayor and captain of the detective bureau.

Rumors flew that the attacks on the Denver priest and Chicago police chief were part of a single conspiracy. In the weeks that followed, police were posted at Catholic churches in Chicago and elsewhere, and police chiefs in several cities received death threats.

The Secretary of Commerce and Labor directed immigration inspectors to work with local police to round up and deport suspected anarchists, a move applauded by newspapers nationwide. The Washington Post went furthest and called for “the scum of foreign countries” to be executed. The government suppressed an anarchist newspaper and President Roosevelt personally ordered the postmaster general to ban another publication from the U.S. mails. Teddy denounced anarchists as “the enemies of mankind” and their philosophy “an offense far more infamous than that of ordinary murder.”

At the end of March came the worst violence yet, as a card-carrying anarchist tried to throw a bomb into a crowd of policemen who were maintaining order in New York’s Union Square following a “desperate socialistic riot.” The explosive went off in the bomb-maker’s hands instead, maiming him fatally and killing a bystander. Identified as a “Williamsburg Anarchist” (a section of Brooklyn said to be a hotbed for socialists and anarchists), the police searched his rooms and found letters from famed anarchists Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman. To many, this was proof of a wide-reaching terror conspiracy against the United States.

Those were the facts as you believed them from reading the newspapers available in Santa Rosa, March, 1908. But here’s the believe-it-or-not twist: By the end of the month, every single actual link to the anarchist movement was proven false.

* The man who murdered the Denver priest said in a rambling first statement – translated from Italian, since he spoke no English – that he killed the Catholic priest because he really, really, hated Catholic priests: “I have grudge against all priests in general…my only regret is that I couldn’t have shot a whole bunch of priests in the church.” He told authorities that if he hadn’t been apprehended he was intending to visit four other churches and kill the priests there. Was he an anarchist? In another statement, he explained his political views were guided by the elderly shoemaker whom he had served as an apprentice in Sicily: “I had been inclined to anarchy, but I never understood its teachings thoroughly.” The reporter also noted “his talk is not coherent and he is evidently inventing stories as he goes along–stories that do not fit together.”

* In Chicago, the coroner found that police chief Shippy had killed his would-be assassin in self defense. The jury heard no testimony that the deceased was an anarchist, despite stories that had appeared in the press describing in great detail his role in a conspiracy (San Francisco Call headline: “CHICAGO REDS IN BIG MURDER PLOT”). Shippy said he had premonitions that someone would try to kill him, and testified that he was suspicious of the man because he thought he saw the bulge of a weapon under his coat, and “he looked to me like an anarchist…there was overspread his face the most vindictive look I ever saw upon a human countenance.” (According to the New York Times’ coverage, another reason for suspicion was because “[he] apparently had dressed himself for death. He wore black clothes and overcoat, a new hat, and clean linen, all of fairly good quality.”) No evidence was presented that the bullets that wounded Shippy’s son and driver were shot by the visitor and not Shippy himself, firing wildly. The reason for the visit remains a mystery today, but the best explanation was that Lazarus Averbuch, a Russian Jew, was planning to return to his homeland and wanted to ask the chief of police for a letter stating that he was not a criminal, as was the custom when leaving a European city. Chief Shippy did not return to his position and resigned two months later. He died in 1911 from syphilis, the final stage of which can result in hallucinations and paranoia.

* The Union Square bomber was not connected to the demonstration earlier that day, when mounted police had brutally suppressed a crowd of up to 25,000 who had gathered to protest the desperate unemployment situation. (Because of the 1907 bank panic, unemployment in New York state had reached 36 percent, with 200,000 estimated to be out of work in New York City alone.) The bomber instead was a 19 year-old Russian immigrant who had lived in the U.S. most of his life and who had a grudge against police because he had been recently clubbed by an officer. “The police are no good,” he said before he died of his wounds a month later. “I hate them. I am sorry that I did not make good…It was the police that I wanted.” The incriminating letters found in his apartment from anarchist leaders turned out to be mimeographed fund-raising appeals.

But not many knew that the anarchy conspiracy was bunk; few papers at the time ever published followup articles to correct errors, no matter how whopping. The public was left with the assumption that a dangerous cabal of murderous anarchists was plotting an ongoing campaign of terror. In truth, by 1908 the winds of anarchism had mostly blown through in America, with only six newsletters nationwide – and one of them lasting only a single issue. Of that dwindly group of true believers, only a tiny sliver still advocated violence as a means to an end. No one was deported under the Secretary of Commerce and Labor’s anarchy crackdown edict.


CLICK or TAP on any cartoon to enlarge. The label on the middle cartoon reads, “undesirable citizens”

In those days the Press Democrat didn’t offer much coverage of national news events except for a paragraph or so on the front page; for the attacks blamed on anarchists, the PD offered four short items, an op/ed reprinted from another paper and the three inflammatory editorial cartoons shown here. No updates corrected the wildly inaccurate earlier stories, but again, that was typical. Readers nationwide were left with the muddled impression that anarchists, certain immigrants, organized labor, and anti-clerical fanatics all fit under the same umbrella of “Reds.” Most dishonest of all was trying to also wedge in the large Socialist Party – the PD’s wire story about the Union Square unemployment protest called it a “desperate socialistic riot…of the anarchists,” for example. The main threat the Party posed was to the Democratic/Republican status quo, as over 420,000 ballots were cast later that year for the Socialist presidential candidate, about three percent of the popular vote.

If scholars wanted to pinpoint the beginning of the Red Scare that consumed the remainder of the American 20th century, March 1908 would be a good choice. (This was also the year that there were fears that Japan was planning to invade.) The country was so riven with fear of anarchist bogeymen that the Indiana town of Wawaka (pop. 800) received a letter demanding $750 or the whole town would be blown up. The letter was signed “Anarchists.” Unbelievably, this obvious prank was taken seriously.

Make no mistake: The phony anarchist scare was entirely the fault of yellow journalism and not an actual threat. Nor was it a scheme by the government, police, church, or politicians to demonize the “Reds,” although each of these groups made stuff up or repeated rumor as fact. But at the same time, those organizations benefited by channeling the public’s fear into more popular support for violent police suppression of protest and free speech by reformers. And that in turn generated more headlines about the lurking Red Menace. A classic analysis of this period, “The Search for Order,” sums up how the country became more divided as a result:


“Straws in the wind appeared everywhere around 1908. Critics who had only grumbled about national reform earlier now cried “socialism” and “communism.’ Organized labor received particularly heavy abuse, with each hint of violence reported as the first gun of civil war…the various organizations that brought unionists and businessmen together for conversation and adjustment were dying from disuse. In grays rather than purples, the atmosphere surrounding labor relations darkened a bit year by year.”

RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER READING

America, 1908 by Jim Rasenberger

The Anarchist Scare of 1908 by Robert J. Goldstein

The Search for Order, 1877-1920 by Robert H. Wiebe

Read More

ELECTION 1908: THE WRONG ROAD TAKEN

The 1908 Santa Rosa election was actually a referendum: Should the town join the 20th century? The voters said no.

By a 17 point margin in the race for mayor and a gap more than 2x in some city council contests, voters elected a slate that represented the status quo – the “Good Ol’ Boys” who had long controlled the town. Such a sweeping victory is even more remarkable considering there was a record-breaking turnout of voters largely because the previous G.O.B. administration had spurred outrage by legalizing Nevada-style prostitution in Santa Rosa. (This is the sixth and final part of this series. For background, view the previous article or see the full index.)

Regardless of which side you wanted to win, election night was an evening that makes one yearn for a time machine. “The crowds in Newspaper Row on Fifth street in the evening were immense,” reported the PD. “From half past seven o’clock until the last returns had been thrown on the canvass outside the Press Democrat office, thousands of people blocked the streets watching the stereopticon [a ‘magic lantern’ projector].” When the final results were announced, a large bonfire was ignited and the flag-waving crowd, led by a brass band, paraded up Mendocino Ave. to College Avenue, where they rallied at the home of the mayor-elect James Gray.

Victory rally hoopla aside, it was actually a tragic night for Santa Rosa. As the wave of the reform movement continued to sweep out corruption in San Francisco and other American cities, the new mayor made certain the status quo did not change here. The “boarding house” ordinance was quickly repealed as promised (at the very first session of the new City Council), but that only dropped the license fee and the requirement that the prostitutes be examined for sexual disease. The bordellos stayed in business, as revealed in this followup posting.

So who were the Good Ol’ Boys? During the campaign, the leader of the ad-hoc “Municipal League” party named four men he claimed were the “bosses” of Santa Rosa. Whether the accusation was truthful or no, they weren’t kingpins in the sense of Boss Tweed or San Francisco’s Abe Ruef; for one thing, the four were equally divided between Republican and Democratic allegiances. The town certainly had a political machine, however, and that was shown by the Dems and Repubs making a backroom deal to present a “fusion” ticket. The local party leaders might bicker when it came to state and national candidates and issues, but they stood together when it came to blocking anyone from cracking down on Santa Rosa’s vice-driven underground economy.

In a nutshell, the Good Ol’ Boys were the men who profited and/or participated in the local underground economy, primarily prostitution and illegal gambling. It appears they mostly still had the dust of the Wild West in their thinning hair and a swaggering, I’ll-do-anything-I-please attitude; to them, it was acceptable for downtown Santa Rosa to become a lawless place after dark because it brought in lots of money, damned be the harm done. This is how the town had functioned since the 1880s or 1870s. By contrast, the Municipal League crowd wanted Santa Rosa to blossom as a middle class, mercantile community, where women could be out in the evenings without risk of being assaulted or mistaken for a prostitute.

A little peek inside the Good Ol’ Boy network inadvertently appeared in a Press Democrat editorial, revealing that two of the First street buildings being used as bordellos were owned by Cornelius Shea and Dr. Summerfield. These men, along with an adjacent property owner, Daniel Behmer, were considered upstanding business men in Santa Rosa. Con Shea owned much of the prime real estate downtown, most famously the “Shea Block” (the entire south side of Fourth st. between B and A streets, now the heart of the mall) and was VP and a director of the Savings Bank of Santa Rosa. Dr. J. J. Summerfield was a well-known veterinarian. These were not absentee slumlords or pimps running a prostitution empire; they were just local investors whose portfolios included whorehouses. The cynical Old Guard could make the case that Behmer was little different from any commercial real estate developer willing to “build to suit” when he had the structure at 720 First st. constructed to suit his tenant’s unique needs.

Santa Rosa was also packed with saloons, with never fewer than 30-40 downtown during that era, except for a blip after the great earthquake. Although the prohibitionist faction in the Municipal League wanted to lock their doors forever, anti-corruption reformers probably wanted city police to simply enforce the laws against illegal gambling inside them.* A 1905 exposé in the Santa Rosa Republican quoted the Chief of Police as saying he couldn’t make arrests because the City Council “will not back me up.” The betting activity historically peaked during the August horse races and was centered at the Oberon Saloon, which was located in another building owned by Con Shea.

Whether the reformers would have followed through and cleaned up the town is impossible to know, but the Good Ol’ Boys had reason to fear that the Municipal League would have more bite than bark if it won the election. Their candidate for mayor was Rolfe Thompson, a former DA who just months before had successfully sued Daniel Behmer for damages accounting to his owning property used for prostitution. If Thompson became the new mayor, he might well have ordered the District Attorney to file suit against Shea, Summerfield, and whoever owned the six other bawdy houses in Santa Rosa. A Municipal League City Council could have told the police chief that yes, you should enforce the gaming laws. There was much at stake, and their win could have been the end of the Good Ol’ Boys’ smalltown empire of crime.

There are a couple of interesting footnotes to the Santa Rosa election of 1908. It was the first local election where women played a significant political role (it would be four more years before women gained the right to vote in California). “The women took an active interest in the election, and they ‘button-holed’ the sterner sex on every hand and questioned them regarding their intentions when it came to using the little rubber stamp,” the Press Democrat reported. (Unfortunately, not enough men listened to them.) In Healdsburg, where the town had voted a day earlier on whether it would go “dry,” women lobbied for prohibition and constructed a booth where they offered a free lunch.

It was also the occasion when Press Democrat editor Ernest Finley finally jumped the shark and lost any pretense of journalistic objectivity, even by the feeble standards of the day. Finley – who was among the election night supporters of Gray speaking to the crowd from the mayor-elect’s front porch – relentlessly attacked Thompson and the Municipal League for bringing attention to Santa Rosa’s corruption to outsiders, thereby harming the town’s stellar reputation. In Finleyland, these were “…unjust and uncalled-for attacks upon some of the best-known people of the community… Santa Rosa will not be apt to recover from the effects for a long time to come.” He kept spitting at the walloped reformers even after the election, until the Santa Rosa Republican told him to stop being such a sore winner and shut up. “The Press Democrat man is a great fighter,” a Republican editorial began. “His dander is up. He is going to show the world that he is ‘real devilish’ when aroused. The combatants in the struggle just ended have disbanded and gone home. The Press Democrat man hasn’t. He never, never will lay down his arms. He is the late battlefield all alone.”

*It should be noted that we don’t really know the Municipal League’s exact position on gambling, prostitution, saloons, or anything else. No campaign literature survives, and the only known copies of the sympathetic prohibitionist’s newsletter, “The Citizen,” are from a year or more later. In one article reproduced below, the writer bemoans there was prize fighting (illegal under state law, although boxing was allowed) and “slot machines are going merrily in the saloons.” Much of what is known about the Municipal League campaign comes from rebuttals that appeared in Press Democrat editorials.

 

YE VALIANT WARRIOR!

The fight concluded and all danger being past, the editor of the Evening Republican crawls from his hiding place in the brush, fans the dust off his knees, and rushes bravely to the front. Waiving his rustless sword on high, he cries:

“Stop, talking and bury the hatchet!”

There is no disposition upon his the part of anybody that we know of to continue the fight, but the resentment that has been aroused by the so-called Municipal League and which found expression at the ratification meeting in front of Mr. Gray’s residence Tuesday evening, is but natural. Under ordinary circumstances, and where the fight is fair, the disposition of the victors is usually magnanimous. But the flight as conducted by the organization mentioned was not a fair fight. The foulest of tactics were employed. False issues, and issues known to be false, were raised whenever and wherever it was thought they would secure a vote. Personalities were indulged in to an extent never before heard of in a campaign here, municipal or otherwise. Honest men, some of the very best in Santa Rosa–men who had freely devoted their time to the public service, and who were entitled to the heartfelt thanks of the entire community for services faithfully and intelligently performed, were assailed without cause and for no good reason were abused and vilified upon every possible occasion like a gang of pickpockets.

Of course such work was resented. It ought to be resented. People have and should have no right to imagine that they can do such things and then escape all responsibility by merely shouting “the gong has sounded.”

Santa Rosa now faces two years of strenuous endeavor. Time are none too good, and it is going to require some hard work and some keen manipulation to keep all the wheels turning. But it can be done, and we believe it will be done. All public-spirited citizens owe it to the community as well as to themselves to get behind the new administration and help accomplish these results. If, when the two years are passed, the results have not proved satisfactory, those who take that view of the matter will have a perfect right to say so.

But they should learn by the developments of the past few days that the public will expect them to be fair in their criticisms. and not unmindful of what is reasonable and what is just.

– Press Democrat editorial, April 9, 1908

 

STILL FIGHTING

The Press Democrat man is a great fighter. His dander is up. He is going to show the world that he is “real devilish” when aroused. The combatants in the struggle just ended have disbanded and gone home. The Press Democrat man hasn’t. He never, never will lay down his arms. He is the late battlefield all alone, and is making the fight of his life. When the silence of this scene threatens to overcome him, he whoops real loud and that keeps him from getting too scared to run away. This is the first time it in the martial annals of the world that a battle was going on after the fighting was all over. Sad indeed would have been the dying of the vanquished had they known in that last hour that the valiant Press Democrat man was going to make “rough-house” at their funeral. But he is a great fighter.

– Santa Rosa Republican editorial, April 9, 1908

 

THE MINISTERIAL UNION AGAIN

Practically the entire issue of the current number of The Citizen, the official organ of the Santa Rosa Ministerial Union, is devoted to lambasting the Press Democrat and putting forth a thinly-veiled appeal to the church people to withdraw their support and patronage from this paper.

And why?

Has the Press Democrat ever shown itself unfriendly to the church or its institutions? Have we ever arrayed ourselves against the project undertaken by religious organizations of the city for the furtherance of the advancement of their legitimate work? Have we ever failed to accord church news proper space or attention in our local columns? Have we ever, at any time or under any circumstances, directed one word of criticism towards any true man of God laboring along broad-minded lines within his proper sphere?

Of course not, and every reader of this paper knows it.

But the Press Democrat, always resentful of anything that savored of class government and forever opposed to the interference of church and state, in the recent municipal campaign stood up and vigorously fought the attempt of the Santa Rosa Ministerial Union, acting by proxy and parading in fancied disguise to secure control of public affairs here. We would have opposed such an attempt upon the part of the saloon interests just as quickly–for the representatives of any other special interest or class for that matter–for no special class of people, acting and operating as such, have the right to aspire to control in this country. Individuals have the right to aspire to anything they choose, but classes have no such rights. If they were allowed to think so, we should soon have class government, which is something no sensible man can approve and something entirely opposed to the principles on which our nation is founded.

The Ministerial Union is pouring the vials of its wrath upon the Press Democrat because we opposed that organization in the last campaign and for no other reason.

And what is this so-called in Santa Rosa Ministerial Union, which in its “official organ” thus comes out and openly advocates that the Press Democrat be boycotted for standing by its principles in the recent municipal campaign? Is the organization one that is truly representative of the local ministry? Do all the ministers of the city endorse the policies of the so-called Ministerial Union? Do even the majority of them favor “the preacher in politics” or stand for the cowardly and un-American boycott, about which its own campaign paper was having so much to say only a few weeks since?

No!

Three of the ministers actively engaged in pastoral work here takes no part in the political activities of the Santa Rosa Ministerial Union, and two of the remaining six or known to have little real sympathy with such methods. This is four men who really constitute the organization and direct its policies. These four men directed the recent Municipal League campaign and wrote most of the articles that appeared in the League paper. One of them acted as editor-in-chief, and had the final decision regarding the availability of all articles submitted for publication.

And these same four men are the ones who now ask the people of Santa Rosa to withdraw their support and patronage from the Press Democrat because this paper happens to have enough backbone to stand up and say what it thinks, regardless of whose toes may be temporarily trampled upon.

The public have not forgotten the kind of arguments that were put out by the Municipal League paper during the campaign just closed, or the thousand-and-one absurd accusations that were made against everything and everybody connected with the other side. Never were charges hurled about with such reckless prodigality. None of them were based upon fact. Long before the campaign was ended they had all been disproved, and not one of the terrible things that were going to happen in the event of Mr. Gray’s election have materialized.

And it is the same men who are responsible for the campaign conducted by the so-called Municipal League who are now throwing bricks at the Press Democrat, and asking people to believe that we stand for all kinds of outrageous ideas and practices.

Along with a lot of other things, the Ministerial Union in its official organ charges for the Press Democrat has “misrepresented and vilified the churches and ministers, and has consistently stood for prostitution, gambling, the Sunday saloon and the obscene story.” Of course none of these charges are true, and our readers know it. The Press Democrat is just as anxious as the members on the Ministerial Union or anybody else to see affairs here conducted properly, and to maintain and elevate the moral tone of the community. While we may not agree with certain members of the organization referred to regarding the best way of accomplishing the results desired, to contend that this paper stands for anything but what is best for all concerned is ridiculous as well as absurd. We challenge a comparison of the class of matter contained in these columns with either those of “Verity,” “The Citizen,” or “The Municipal League,” and defy any human being to show where we ever stood in all our newspaper experience “stood” for topics as questionable or stories anything like as suggestive as those discussed and told day after day and night after night after night by the Evangelist Bulgin at his big test on Fourth Street.

The Santa Rosa Ministerial Union has now been in existence for several years. in all good faith and with courtesy you should like to enquire of the gentlemen making up that body if they really think anything has been gained for the cause by the policy that has been pursued since the organization . As we view the matter, valuable support has been alienated that might just as well have been retained, strong antagonisms have been aroused where friendships might have been formed, and strife and ill-feeling has been engendered when only harmony, peace and good-will should prevail.

Why not try different tactics for a while?

– Press Democrat editorial, May 3, 1908

THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION

The city council is allowing the denizens of the “red light district” district to go on violating the law by selling liquor without a license. It is commonly reported that there are nine government licenses taken out in that district. That ought to be enough evidence. Nothing else should be needed. Talk about enforcing the law. We have a weak set of men on the council of this city. They hang their head pans supinely in the presence of a few “sporting women” and say, “we are powerless.” It is about time we had somebody in office whose backbone is not composed of shoestrings. An order was issued that the women must leave that district last August. Nothing was done about it.

We thought that Mr. Gray was to do great things if elected. He would show the Santa Rosa people how to do things. The saloon organ of this city on the 18th of March last year said, “And that there is also another reason, which is that James H. Gray is a better man for mayor of Santa Rosa than Rolfe L. Thompson could ever think of being.” We are willing to leave it to any fair-minded man who knows Mr. Thompson as to whether Mr. Thompson would have been as as inefficient in the office of mayor as Mr. Gray has been. We would like to ask with all due respect for Mr. Gray, what has been done while in office? He was going to clean up the notorious “red light district.” He has not done anything in that line. The town is going on in the same old way.

It is practically a wide-open town today. The saloons are running full blast 18 hours out of 24. We have lately had added to our list of booze resorts another, making a total of 40. Liquor is sold in the “red light district.” Prize fighting is allowed in town. Slot machines are going merrily in the saloons. Yes, there is one thing which we are glad to see the council has ostensibly stopped (we do not know whether the laws enforced or not), and that is, gambling in the rear of cigar stores. We want to give all due praise, but when we come to sum up the administration under the present mayor, who came to this office with the highest praise of the saloon organ, we find that it has been about as spineless as any thing could well be and have any existence at all.

The puzzle that was printed in The Municipal League, showing Mr. Gray in minute minutes type between Grace and Geary, had more truth than poetry in it. Where will you find the mayor today? “The only answer is the echo of our wailing cry.”

– The Citizen, April, 1909

Read More