Our 1925 ancestors had boundless love for all things with a steering wheel and on Sundays the Press Democrat had a dedicated automobile section that was 3-4 pages long. Beyond the expected ads from car makers, there were articles on topics like tire pressure, battery prices, and trouble shooting problems (“A peculiar grating noise from a horn is an indication of a broken diaphragm”). New salesmen at local dealerships were treated like sports stars, often with a photo to accompany their profile. Readers learned which asphalt roads were newly oiled and where to expect detours.
The rest of this article and the entire series on July, 1925 can be read at the SantaRosaHistory.com website. Because of recurring problems with the Blogger platform, I am no longer wasting my time formatting and posting complete articles here. I will continue to create stubs for the sake of continuity, but will be publishing full articles only at SantaRosaHistory.com. - Jeff Elliott
The 4th of July fell on a Saturday in 1925, and tens of thousands of San Franciscans emerged from their foggy summer climes to drive around sunny Sonoma county. (It actually rained here that morning, but hey, it was still a relief from the city’s usual June Gloom.) One slight problem: There was no Golden Gate Bridge yet, so 15,000 cars had to get here by ferry. And that’s not counting a large number that crossed a day or so earlier, parked in Sausalito as their drivers took the ferry back to the city as pedestrians to finish up the workweek.
The rest of this article and the entire series on July, 1925 can be read at the SantaRosaHistory.com website. Because of recurring problems with the Blogger platform, I am no longer wasting my time formatting and posting complete articles here. I will continue to create stubs for the sake of continuity, but will be publishing full articles only at SantaRosaHistory.com. - Jeff Elliott
April 1, 1916 was a grand day in Santa Rosa as an estimated 20,000 visitors - "one of the largest [crowds] ever seen here," boasted the Press Democrat - joined residents to cheer a parade of autos two miles long. No, it wasn't the Rose Carnival (there wasn't one that year) but “Safety First Day” organized by town bigwigs. Hyped as being the kickoff of a new national semi-holiday, six newsreel camera crews were on hand to record the doings.
There were all manner of safety-related demonstrations. Firemen extinguished a mock fire on the roof of the Santa Rosa Savings Bank, although there was a delay because a car was illegally parked in front of the hydrant. A PG&E lineman faked electrocution (!) and was given aid by a doctor and nurse who were part of the act. It was performed so convincingly that two doctors in the audience rushed up to help. The parade included two boys carrying an enormous model of a safety pin which was a real crowd-pleaser for some reason, and the Petaluma contingent included children dressed as chickens (of course).
But the main focus of Safety First Day was "instructing people in the rules of the road and operating of automobiles to prevent accidents." Earlier the San Francisco Examiner promoted the event with promises that "expert drivers of motor cars will give exhibitions of the right and wrong way of driving in the city streets...drivers will give an actual demonstration how automobiles should be operated to comply with the laws" and not to be left out, "pedestrians will also be taught how to cross the streets. Dummies will be used to show how the drivers of cars have to avoid the average pedestrian who never looks up or down the street before crossing."
Luther Burbank and his new Willys-Knight five-passenger touring car were at the front of the parade, and afterwards the Examiner quoted his enthusiastic endorsement of the event. "Such a demonstration as this is amazing...if adopted nationally it would be one of the greatest benefits to humanity. I had no idea that it would be as good as this."
Unfortunately, a few months later our Luther was involved in a safety mishap which could have ended tragically. He and Elizabeth were driving to the movies when he confused the accelerator with the brake pedal. The big car lurched over the curb, narrowly missed a pedestrian, then crashed through the display window of the White House department store at Fourth and B streets. Burbank parked and called store owner Bill Carithers (did Burbank just walk through the broken window to use their phone?) before he and his wife proceeded with their plans to watch a romantic melodrama and a British documentary on WWI combat.
Gentle Reader might expect the most famous guy in town crashing through a plate glass window of the most popular store in town would merit more than a 200 word item on page eight of the PD. But despite the enthusiasm shown on 1916's Safety First Day, in the following years even serious accidents became so commonplace they became back page fillers - it was rare to open the paper and not find reports of a driver and passengers being hurled out of their seats, a car "turning turtle" (flipping over) or a pedestrian being struck.
The rest of this article can be read at the SantaRosaHistory.com website. Because of recurring problems with the Blogger platform, I am no longer wasting my time formatting and posting complete articles here. I will continue to create stubs for the sake of continuity, but will be publishing full articles only at SantaRosaHistory.com.
- Jeff Elliott
"The past is never dead. It’s not even past" is a flippant line tossed off in a novel by William Faulkner (don't bother reading it; I did one college summer, when I thought Faulkner novels were something I just had to learn to appreciate, more the fool I) and that quote reflects the theme of the book, which is about the terrible prices we often pay for long-ago mistakes. In recent years it's been misappropriated to mean history in general, particularly as an upbeat catchphrase for historic places. That meaning fits the town of Sonoma, with its adobes haunted by Vallejo's ghosts, or Petaluma, with much of its downtown undisturbed since Mark Twain wrote Huckleberry Finn. But Santa Rosa - not so much. Here the phrase has to be used in its original intent, to express the unhappy ways we are dogged by our past.
This is the 700th article to appear in this journal, which now clocks in at over 1.5 million words (I have statistically typed the letter "e" about 190,530 times but the letter "z" merely 1,110). Normally such a milestone is an occasion for a "best of" recap but I did that not so long ago back at #650 with "650 KISSES DEEP," so instead I'd like to step back and reflect on some of the reasons Santa Rosa came to be the way it is today.
This is also timely because right now (summer 2019) the city is working on the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan which "seeks to guide new development with a view to creating a vibrant urban center with a distinct identity and character." The plan calls for wedging up to 7,000 more housing units into the downtown area, which will be quite a trick.
There are limits to what developers can build, in part because this is a high-risk earthquake zone (a 1 in 3 chance we will have a catastrophe within the next 26 years), but a greater obstacle is that Santa Rosa is uniquely burdened by layers of bad decisions made over several decades.
The rest of this article can be read at the SantaRosaHistory.com website. Because of recurring problems with the Blogger platform, I am no longer wasting my time formatting and posting complete articles here. I will continue to create stubs for the sake of continuity, but will be publishing full articles only at SantaRosaHistory.com.
- Jeff Elliott
Ah, Spring in Santa Rosa. The colorful roses, the whiff of barbecue, the deafening roar of overpowered engines at the fairgrounds that ruin the evenings for everyone living near downtown. Now that the city is trying to lure developers into building high-rise apartment buildings, perhaps someone should mention that those units will be uninhabitable on weekends when there are motorcycle/hotrod races, destruction derbies or monster truck rallies. Hey, while we're discussing a makeover of the downtown area anyway, could we please consider swapping the locations of the county fairgrounds and county admin center? Just a thought.
Santa Rosa's always been a race-lovin' town, however, starting with our hosting the first California Grand Prize Race in 1909. Even when there were fuel shortages during WWI and WWII we packed the grandstand to watch drivers spin around the dirt track and not-so-rarely crash. There have been deaths (two motorcycle racers were killed in 2016) and some of the pileups became the stuff of legend, such as the flaming tangle of nineteen Model T Fords in 1939 ("a smash-up spectacle Cecil B. De Mille couldn't have staged," gasped the Press Democrat).
Of all the events at the Santa Rosa Fairgrounds I've read about in the old newspapers, there's one I'd have truly loved to have attended: On July 4, 1918, Ed Dooley and another driver slammed their massive cars together head-on at an impact speed of 100 MPH, the men jumping out at the last second. At age 39, Dooley had never done anything like this before; he was a portly ex-salesman who apparently woke up one morning and decided he was fearless.
The rest of this article can be read at the SantaRosaHistory.com website. Because of recurring problems with the Blogger platform, I am no longer wasting my time formatting and posting complete articles here. I will continue to create stubs for the sake of continuity, but will be publishing full articles only at SantaRosaHistory.com.
- Jeff Elliott
Ah, 1913, the year Californians demonstrated how easy it was for untrained drivers to get behind the wheel, drive really fast and run people down.
On just one December day in San Francisco, a man named Caseilli was arrested for a hit and run of three children ("I didn't think they were badly hurt and they were picked up, so I went on"). A man named Roy Burton was charged with hitting a pedestrian (at least he gave the victim a ride part of the way home, dropping him off within two blocks). Louis Kantor was arrested as the suspect of a joy ride that killed a bank teller and the driver of an "auto hearse" ran down a four year-old. The child was not seriously hurt but at least that fellow stopped, although that may have been to check whether he had a new customer to ride in the back.
Those numbers weren't unusual; the Santa Rosa Republican offered an editorial that June, noting five were killed on a single day in Oakland. On the same day the Santa Rosa paper spotted a car racing down King street ("where police officers seldom come") at unsafe speeds. "Wherever it is believed the police officers are not plentiful or are too busy to see everything, some auto drivers will take advantage of the situation," the editor complained. "There seems no way to check the habit. The daily auto death toll grows larger."
It was a serious issue not being treated very seriously by the state, which still regarded a car as horse-and-buggy version 2.0. At the time the entire section of California law related to automobiles was only 19 short paragraphs and could easily fit on a pocket-sized card. All auto accidents were classified misdemeanors and as for hitting someone, the law stated: "In case of accident or injury to person or property car must stop and if requested, give name of owner" (emphasis mine). There was no requirement to help the victim or mention of what was required if the person was unconscious - or dead.
At least the law did say the driver and/or owner of the car could be sued for injuries or property damage, but a couple of earlier high-profile local accidents demonstrated how well that worked out - or didn't.
In late 1910 a Sebastopol farmer named Walter Elphick was driving a car at night on the road from Santa Rosa to Penngrove. (Before you ask, Elphick Road in Sebastopol is apparently named after his father Henry.) He hit the buggy of David Batchelor, who had a real estate and insurance office in Penngrove. Batchelor was thrown 25 feet from the buggy. His horse broke free as the car shoved the buggy 50 feet back. Elphick lied about his identity (he said his name was Jones and he was going to Cloverdale) but Batchelor noted the license number on the car. Bachelor sued for $3,000 damages.
At the jury trial Bachelor testified that the car was on the wrong side of the road and going over 40 MPH (this was 1910 and country roads were not paved). Elphick said he tried to stop but his tires skidded. As for the fake name, he claimed he didn't really remember that clearly, but he lied to "avoid publicity." The jury awarded Bachelor $700, which was about what the average family earned for a year.
But the matter still wasn't settled because: Lawyers.
Five months later, Elphick asked for a new trial. His lawyer was this journal's anti-hero James Wyatt Oates who built (what would become known as) Comstock House. A young apple farmer wouldn't normally be able to hire the top lawyer around, but Oates was a fanatical car nut who had just ended two terms as president of the Sonoma County Automobile Association, and likely took on the case gratis. Elphick now claimed "the accident was unavoidable and that Batchelor was not thrown from his buggy at the time of the impact, but was thrown later when his horse became unmanageable," according to the Press Democrat. After seven hours of deliberation, the jury knocked the award down to $125.
The other notable accident happened in 1911 when Sloan Boyd, a young man who lived in Rincon Valley, was hit while riding his bicycle home from work at night. This time the victim's injuries were quite serious; he was hospitalized for six weeks and "for several days he was delirious and it was not thought he would live," reported the Republican. The PD showed great interest in the case and offered regular updates on Boyd's improving condition but curiously, never mentioned who was responsible except for the initial story declaring it was "a San Francisco man." But even that was wrong; he was Samuel Stitt, the manager of a significant Los Angeles bank and the car belonged to his fiancée Hazel Farmer, a member of Santa Rosa's elite society.
The daughter of Dorothy Farmer (think Farmers Lane), Hazel and her mother were as crazy about cars as Wyatt Oates and both were part of the Oates' small circle of friends. In 1909 Dorothy had purchased a Packard in Los Angeles and the pair of them drove all the way back to Santa Rosa - no easy feat since those primitive automobiles broke down regularly and most roads between towns were horse trails. Both were often featured in the Press Democrat for their motoring adventures around the state.
The badly injured bicyclist sued for $21,720 - an amount so specific that it had to be itemized - and the suit was quickly settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. Hazel married Stitt shortly thereafter and her name again regularly adorned the PD social pages. (As a little Believe-it-or-Not! aside, mother Dorothy lived to 100 and died in 1964, enjoying good health all of her life except for 1947, when she fell and broke her hip on the corner of Fifth and Humboldt streets - struck by a bicycle.)
Sloan Boyd was well compensated for having been hit by an heiress, while David Batchelor probably didn't have enough left over after paying his attorney to buy a new buggy wheel. But the bigger picture is that both were totally on their own after being run over; there was no requirement for car insurance (the first ads for it didn't appear in the Press Democrat until 1916) and no expectation the police would investigate whether or not the driver was driving dangerously.
Meanwhile, every year the new cars were bigger, heavier and faster - and there were lots more of them; by the spring of 1913, California had over 100,000 registered cars. That worked out to about one per every 25 residents, and you can bet more people than just car owners were driving them. Few had any kind of insurance and none were expected to pass even the most minimal driving test, as there was no license required to drive. What would you expect the outcome to be?
Always a good reflection of popular culture, nearly every Sunday the funnies found in city papers would have at least one cartoon showing some hapless soul losing control of a car and crashing. There was also "Motorcycle Mike," a popular comic strip where the whole gag was a reckless guy riding around accidentally causing random destruction and sending people flying. By 1913 there was also a new disturbing trend: Hit and run accidents.
"Hit and run" was not yet a common term in 1913, but Google offers an "Ngram Viewer" that scans all 30 million items in Google Books (which includes many magazines and journals) for words or phrases, and for the first two decades of the 20th century it shows a spike nationally around that year for accident-related terms such as, "hit by an automobile," run over by an automobile" and yes, "hit and run."
Locally there were at least three serious hit and run incidents in 1913. In Santa Rosa a man on a motorcycle was run down on Mendocino avenue near Cherry street and a bicyclist was knocked unconscious on Santa Rosa avenue. Those drivers apparently were not caught, but a Napa man named Oscar Godwin was arrested for rear-ending at high speed a buggy on the road to St. Helena, where two young women were thrown to the ground. Godwin's excuse for not stopping was that his passengers forced him to keep going.
Clearly, something had to be done. Lacking a workable set of rules of the road from the state, local jurisdictions were stepping in to set their own basic laws, such as Santa Rosa requiring exhaust pipe mufflers and drivers keep to the right side of the street (see "DRIVING LIKE A SANTA ROSAN"). Finally, the legislature revamped the entire section of code with the Vehicle Act of 1913.
The new state code was comprehensive - far too comprehensive to the likes of many. Drivers had chafed even under the old laws and griped they were being picked upon; the great cartoonist Rube Goldberg earlier had produced a cartoon for the San Francisco Call satirizing a tortuous visit to police court for a speeding ticket (the harassed driver looks suspiciously like Rube himself, BTW).
 |
| Rube Goldberg/San Francisco Call, May 7, 1911 |
Little, if anything, in the 1913 law seems controversial today. No street racing was allowed without a permit, no drunk driving, joyriding was illegal without the owner's permission and no one under the age of 16 could drive, for ex. Addressing hit and run, §367c of the new law finally required the driver to not only stop but provide help, while making it a felony to flee the scene.
But there were loud complaints that even those changes were overreach and an affront to liberty itself. A superior court judge in San Bernardino had declared all these rules were "discrimination" against drivers because similar restrictions weren't placed on people using horses. Even providing your name at the scene of an accident was unconstitutional, that judge said, because it could be self-incriminating - and again, not at all required if you were behind a horse. Because of this absurdly strict interpretation, hit and run was knocked down from a felony back to being a misdemeanor.
The rollicking statewide fight over the California Vehicle Act of 1913 would be a fun article to write (oooh, the passion!) but not for here. I'll close by adding there was even a squabble over the new requirement for an "automobile warning signal." Every vehicle had to have a signaling device "capable of emitting an abrupt sound, adequate in quality and volume to give warning of the approach of such vehicle." Further, it was illegal to use the signals "for any purpose except as warnings of danger." In other words: A horn.
SUES FOR INJURIES IN AUTO COLLISIOND. W. Batchelor Brings Action for $3,000 from W. R. Elphick Whom He Says Was Careless
For alleged carelessness and negligence on the part of W. R. Elphick, in driving his automobile into the vehicle in which D. W. Batchelor was riding on the night of December 11, 1910, Mr. Batchelor, through his attorney, Judge Samuel K. Dougherty, commenced a suit to recover $3,000 damages from Elphick in the Superior Court on Saturday. Mr. Batchelor cites in his complaint that he sustained painful injuries and that his vehicle was damaged. He was required to have medical attention and medicines and his business as a real estate man was interfered with. The collision occurred on the road from Santa Rosa to Penngrove.
- Press Democrat, January 1 1911
Will Contest the Case
Attorney J. W. Oates has been retained by W. R. Elphick to defend the action filed against him by D. W. Batchelor, to recover damages for injuries received in a collision on the county road on the night of December 11, when it is alleged Elphick ran into the buggy occupied by the plaintiff. Mr. Elphick denies any responsibility for the accident.
- Press Democrat, January 5 1911
DAMAGES ASKED IN AUTO SUITD. W. Batchelor Sues W. R. Elphick For Injuries Sustained in Automobile Collision
Before Superior Judge A. J. Buckles of Solano county, sitting in Judge Denny’s court, the trial was commenced of the suit for $3,000 damages brought by W. W. Batchelor against W. R. Elphick for injuries sustained and damage done near Penngrove, when Elphlck’s automobile crashed Into the buggy In which he was riding.
It was a Jury trial...
Surveyor Newton V. V. Smyth was called to explain a chart he had made of the scene of the accident. He also computed the speed at which the auto was going.
Batchelor testified that at the time of the crash he was hurled twenty-five feet and that the buggy was carried or dragged for fifty feet on the front of the automobile, the horse having broke loose.
Batchelor testified that at the time of the colllson he was on the right side of the road and the automobile driven by the defendant was on the wrong side of the road. He testified that the machine was being driven at a rate of not less than forty miles an hour. He testified that Elphick gave his name as "Jones," and said he was going to Cloverdale. Batchelor said he took the number of the machine and by this means learned the identity of the owner of the automobile. He testified that he was injured on the arm and shoulder and also suffered from shock.
Mrs. Batchelor testified as to her husband’s injury and Dr. Bogle was called to the stand and said he found Mr. Batchelor suffering from a contused arm and complaining of pain in the region of the kidneys.
J. D. Cook and son testified as to the manner in which the buggy had been dragged by the automobile and the indentations it had made on the side of the road.
Chief Deputy Assessor J. C. Smith testified as to the assessed value of Mr. Elphlck’s property in this county.
H. A. Atkinson testified as to Batchelor's having come to his office two weeks after the accident, nursing his arm and in a nervous condition. Geo. Vogt was another witness.
At a few minutes to five o’clock an adjournment was taken until nine o'clock Friday morning. Judge S, K. Dougherty, counsel for Mr. Batchelor, stated that he had one more witness he expected to call before resting the case. Colonel James W. Oates represents Mr. Elphick, and he will call some witnesses. The case will probably go to the jury today.
- Press Democrat, July 7 1911
VERDICT GIVES PLAINTIFF $700D. W. Batchelor Wins His Suit Against W. R. Elphick in the Superior Court
D. W. Batchelor was yesterday afternoon awarded a verdict of $700 by a jury in Judge Denny’s department of the Superior Court, against W. R. Elphick. Judge A. J. Buckles presided at the trial.
Batchelor asked for $1,400 for injuries and damages sustained on account of a collision between Elphlck’s automobile and his horse and buggy. The alleged details of the case have already been stated.
Elphick, Tony Veir and D. H. McReynolds were the witnesses called for the defense yesterday. Mr. Elphick testified that he only saw Batchelor’s rig when he was only a short distance away, and that he did his best to swerve to his side of the road. He said he did not remember fully that he did at first give his name as “Jones.” He did so as to avoid the publicity. He testified that his machine skidded at the time of the collision, and he could not avoid the impact.
Judge Samuel K. Dougherty, who represented the plaintiff, made the opening argument to the jury. Colonel James W. Oates, who represented Mr. Elphick, followed, and Judge Dougherty closed. The jury returned its verdict after a short deliberation. Judge Buckles granted a stay of execution.
- Press Democrat, July 8 1911
NEW TRIAL IS GRANTED IN DAMAGE SUIT
In an opinion received yesterday from Judge A. J. Buckles of Solano county, a new trial is granted in the case of D. W. Bachelor against W. R. Elphlck. This sets aside a judgment for $700 granted the plaintiff in the first trial, which was heard by Judge Buckles, sitting in this county. The action was for $3,000 damages for a collision between Batchelor’s buggy and Elphick's automobile. It was alleged in the complaint that Elphick’s automobile ran up behind the buggy and collided with it, injuring both the vehicle and the plaintiff. The plaintiff is represented by Attorney S. K. Dougherty, and the defendant by Attorney James W. Oates.
- Press Democrat, December 20 1911
ALL THE EVIDENCE IN ARGUMENTS TODAY
...Elphick took the stand in his own behalf at the trial on Wednesday and he alleged that the accident was unavoidable and that Batchelor was not thrown from his buggy at the time of the impact, but was thrown later when his horse became unmanageable. He went pretty thoroughly into his contention before he left the stand on direct and cross-examination.
- Press Democrat, March 14, 1912
JURY GIVES HIM $125After being out for almost seven hours and casting many ballots, the jury in the suit of D. W. Batchelor against W. R. Elphlck brought a verdict into Judge Seawell's department of the Superior Court on Thursday night shortly before ten o'clock awarding the plaintiff a judgement in the sum of $125. covering all phases of the damages he sustained. Batchelor sued for over $3,000 damages for for alleged personal injuries received and damage done his horse and buggy when Elphlck's automobile collided with him as he was driving along the country road some distance from this city...
- Press Democrat, March 15, 1912
SLOAN BOYD IS SERIOUSLY HURTRun Down by an Automobile on Saturday Night Out on the Sonoma Road Near TownSloan Boyd, a well known resident of Rincon Valley, while riding home on his blcycle from his employment at the National Ice Company’s establishment in this city on Saturday night, met with a serious accident. He came into a collision head-on with a touring car coming to Santa Rosa in the opposite direction. He was thrown with terrific force from his wheel and suffered serious cuts about the face and head and a bad contusion of the shoulder. A San Francisco man was at the wheel in the automobile.
The machine stopped and Mr. Boyd was hurried to the Mary Jesse Hospital in this city where his injuries were attended to by Dr. Jesse. It Is feared that he may be internally hurt also. He was detained at the hospital. Mrs. Boyd was also brought to the hospital to see her husband as soon as possible after the accident in the automobile which ran him down. The accident happened on a dangerous turn out on the Sonoma road not far from the city limits.
- Press Democrat, October 15 1911
AUTOIST RAN INTO FRANK KURLANDERFrank Kurlander, a son of Mrs. Maurice Kurlander, was run down by an automobile driver Saturday evening on Mendocino avenue, near Cherry street. The Kurlander boy was riding a motorcycle at the time. Fortunately he was injured but slightly, but his motorcycle was badly damaged. The automobile driver put himself in a serious position by running off without stopping to ascertain what damage he had done and for not rendering assistance. The law is very severe on the auto driver who runs off in hope of not being recognized after he has run into a person. The authorities have the number of the machine which struck young Kurlander, and it will be an easy matter for them to locate the machine.
- Santa Rosa Republican, April 1, 1912
AUTO HITS MAN AND LEAVES HIM UNCONSCIOUS IN ROADDashes Away Into the Darkness After the CollisionWhile riding a bicycle on Santa Rosa avenue Saturday night about half past seven o’clock, Fred Kruse, who lives at Fifth and Riley streets, was run down by an automobile and badly hurt.
The auto did not stop after striking Kruse, but the driver threw on more power and sped away into the darkness. The machine was running at a high rate of speed and had only the small lights burning and did not light up the roadway at all.
Kruse had been working on a ranch belonging to his sister, in Bennett Valley. He was returning to this city and his uncle, mother and brother were following in a buggy. When they turned from Bennett avenue to Santa Rosa avenue they came upon the unconscious form of their relative lying in the road. They picked him up and hurried him to the family home, where Dr. S. I. Wyland was hastily summoned.
The young man was found to have suffered a severe wrenching of the back and his right side and shoulder were badly bruised. There may be internal injuries, though this cannot be determined as yet.
When found Kruse was lying at one side of the road about ten feet ahead of his wheel, which was badly smashed. He was unconscious but was talking incoherently and kept asking why the auto did not stop. When he regained consciousness he could throw but little light on the accident. He said that he thought he had been struck by the fender of the machine. He heard the auto coming Just before it hit him and looked back over his shoulder. He says he instantly realized that he was about to be hit and swerved sharply to one side in an attempt to get out of the way The machine struck him and he called to the occupants of the car as he was hurled to the ground. He says there can be no doubt but that they knew they had hit him. He can give no description of the car. There is not the slightest clew to the Identity of the perpetrators of the outrage. It is about time such business as this was stopped.
- Press Democrat, March 2 1913
NEW AUTOMOBILE LAW SIGNED BY GOVERNOROwners and Drivers Will Be Affected by Its TermsStringent Regulations Provided for Auto and Motorcycles and New Rate of Licenses Is Provided While County Gets Half the Money Collected
Sacramento, June 14.—Among the bills signed by Governor Johnson today was Assembly bill No. 2095, the automobile registration bill, which transfers the department from the office of the Secretary of Stale and places it in the hands of the State Engineer and the State Treasurer, and provides a new schedule of automobile licenses.
This measure sets forth rules of the road; makes joy-riding, where the consent of the owner has not been obtained, a felony; provides that minors under 16 years shall not be licensed; fixes the speed limit at thirty-five miles an hour; prohibits intoxicated persons from driving an automobile or a motorcycle, and provides that "muffler cutouts" shall not be used within any incorporated city or city and county.
No races or contests for speed shall be permitted without first securing a permit from the proper authorities of the city or county. Motor vehicles must always be driven on the right-hand side of the highway and be under control of the driver, and in case of collision in which a person is hurt ths driver must stop and lend assistance and upon request of the person injured or whose property has been damaged the driver shall give his name and address and the number of his auto license.
Here is the schedule of licenses to bp charged: Motorcycle. $2 a year: automobile, less than 20 horsepower, $5; 20 and less than 30, $10; 30 and less than 40. $16; 40 and less than 50, $20; 50 and less than 60, $25; 60 and above, $30; dealers, for five or less autos. $50, $10, for every automobile In excess of five; dealers in motorcycles, $5 for five seals; every original chauffeur’s license, $2; renewal, $2, and additional seal of registration or license, 50 cents.
All fees or other moneys collected by the State Treasurer shall be placed in a fund known as "the “motor vehicle fund,” and one-half of the receipts shall be returned to the Counties from which they were received, and these funds shall be paid into the road funds of the counties receiving them. San Francisco shall, under the provisions of the act, be deemed a county.
Fines collected in the counties shall be paid into the county treasury, and placed in the "county good roads fund.” Applications for licenses shall be made to the State Engineer, and the licenses shall be issued by him, the money for the same to be paid to the State Treasurer, thus providing a double check on the business.
- Press Democrat, June 15, 1913
HURRY AWAY IN THE DARKAuto Joyriders Leave Their Victims in the Road
Oscar Godwin, an auto proprietor and driver of Napa, is alleged to have collided with another vehicle near St. Helena last week--also with the new law which makes a crime of the neglect to stop and render assistance in the case of an automobile accident.
Godwin late Tuesday night at a high speed ran his automobile into the rear of a buggy driven by William Bradley. The buggy was wrecked and Misses Beth and Grace Nottage of Oakland were thrown out and severely injured. Godwin hurried on without stopping, though he heard the screams of the frightened and injured girls. In his car were E. Bailey of Napa and two women. The two men have been arrested. Godwin makes the lame excuse that his passengers forced him to drive on, and so to escape bodily injury he left his injured victims lying in the road. The offense is a serious one, as the maximum penalty is five years in the penitentiary, or a fine of $5000, or both. Both men have been released on bail of $1000.
- Santa Rosa Republican, June 16, 1913
Bad news, auto aficionados; Standard Oil jacked up the price of gas another half cent, raising the 1912 price to around 18 cents. "Speed burners, won't this make you slower?" the Press Democrat asked snarkily.
| 1911 | 16¢ |
| 1912 | 18¢ |
| 1913 | 22¢ |
| 1914 | 13¢ |
| 1915 | 15¢ |
| 1916 | 23¢ |
| 1917 | N/A |
| 1918 | 25¢ |
| 1919 | 25¢ |
| 1920 | 30¢ |
| 1921 | 26¢ |
| 1922 | 25¢ |
| 1923 | 22¢ |
| 1924 | 21¢ |
| 1925 | 22¢ |
| 1926 | 23¢ |
| 1927 | 21¢ |
| 1928 | 21¢ |
| 1929 | 21¢ |
| 1930 | 20¢ |
| 1931 | 17¢ |
| 1932 | 18¢ |
| 1933 | 18¢ |
| 1934 | 19¢ |
| 1935 | 19¢ |
| 1936 | 19¢ |
| 1937 | 20¢ |
| 1938 | 20¢ |
| 1939 | 19¢ |
| 1940 | 18¢ |
| 1941 | 19¢ |
| 1942 | 20¢ |
| 1943 | 21¢ |
| 1944 | 21¢ |
| 1945 | 21¢ |
| 1946 | 21¢ |
| 1947 | 23¢ |
| 1948 | 26¢ |
| 1949 | 27¢ |
True, 18¢ was no small change back then. A dime in 1912 was worth about $2.50 today, so it was actually the equivalent of $4.50 a gallon.
We don't know precisely what they were paying in Sonoma County at the time; price bumps were mentioned in the local papers, but never the cost at the pumps, but it was most likely less than 18¢. A 1913 San Francisco Call article noted the market price in the city was then 16½ cents - 25 percent less than the national average - which meant a gallon of gas was possibly more like 14¢ locally in 1912. Prices were probably lower in the Bay Area simply because it was a major seaport; Shell did not begin operating the Martinez refinery until 1915.
While we may never know the real 1912-1913 gas prices around here, we surely know what they were in remote parts of the country. Open any auto enthusiast magazine from that period and you're bound to find a correspondent kvetching about how much more it cost to fill 'er up in Death Valley, Yellowstone or some other wilderness. The fellow who complained in high dudgeon about gas being 40¢ at Yosemite probably came home with snapshots of gas station signs.
The table at right shows average gasoline prices and was a challenge to assemble. The Energy Dept. has data going back to 1919 but is impossible to access without a Windows computer and a special plugin (I guess it's still 1998 over at the Department of Energy) so the link provided above is to download an archived copy of the spreadsheet. The really old data had to be scratched out of magazines from the time, particularly "Automobile Topics". So until someone replicates my work - or more likely, rips off this data - here is the most comprehensive info on early gas prices found anywhere online.
While doing this research, however, I made the most amazing discovery: Experts on the Internet don't know what they're talking about.
Searching for historic gasoline prices turned up all sorts of results that were wildly wrong; among the honking mistakes from popular websites such as ask.com, "Yahoo! Answers" and answers.com (among others), I was informed authoritatively a gallon cost 7¢ in 1912, 3¢ in 1916, 20¢ in 1920 and 9¢ in 1930. Sources are never given. Of course.
Try it yourself. Enter a search string into Google such as, "how much was gasoline in 19xx" or "price of gas in 19xx". I did a little experiment with years picked at random between 1911 and 1929, choosing the top hit on the search results. Out of a dozen trials, only one was correct (thank you, inflationdata.com).
SPEED BURNERS, WON'T THIS MAKE YOU SLOWER?
J. B. Clifford, the well known travelling representative of the Standard Oil Company in this section of the State, received the following telegram while in this city last night from headquarters: "Advance gasoline, naptha [sic] and distillates half a cent." This means that the price is half a cent a gallon greater than it was yesterday.
- Press Democrat, April 16, 1912
ANOTHER ADVANCE IN PRICE OF GASOLINE
Yesterday J. B. Clifford, the travelling representative of the Standard Oil Company in this section, received a dispatch from headquarters informing him that there had been another advance in the price of gasoline. The dispatch read:
"Effective June eleventh, advance price gasoline and naptha [sic] one half cent. Gas machine gasoline one cent. All points: all deliveries. No change engine distillate."
- Press Democrat, June 12, 1912
Driving to Santa Rosa? Be forewarned police there are enforcing unreasonable new laws, such as requiring cars to have mufflers, red tail lights, and drivers to stay on the right side of the street.
It was 1912 and cars were now seen everywhere, thanks to new inexpensive designs such as the Ford model "T" and the introduction of dealership loan financing. But California still had no motor vehicle code, aside from some basic laws such as requiring drivers to stop after an accident. Cities and counties were expected to set their own rules and regulations. In Santa Rosa drivers were required to honk the horn at intersections; in Lake County motorists had to stop and turn off their engines if a horse was approaching. Petaluma police would write a ticket for having a car without a muffler but until 1912 Santa Rosa didn't care. Speed limits varied everywhere, leading to the birth of the speed trap as a boon for government budgets everywhere. All that and more is covered in an earlier item, "The Rules of the Road are Relative."
Santa Rosa's City Council passed a few new road rules in the summer of 1912, none of them seemingly controversial today. No U-turns in the middle of the street; have lights on after dark; stay to the right, pass on the left. The latter may seem like a particular no-brainer but consider the two photographs of Fourth street below, from 1910 (L) and 1911 (R), both showing a car toodling down the wrong side of the street. (Photos courtesy the Larry Lapeere Collection)
| 
|
According to the local newspapers, these new laws created a terrific uproar. "[M]any persons expressed disapproval of the new law in the most expressive terms," reported the Santa Rosa Republican. "One man even declared he would never return to Santa Rosa again. Several times during the day it seemed that trouble would ensue and that arrests would have to be made."
Tempers flared at a big Chamber of Commerce meeting a few days later as store owners complained "many of their patrons had told them and many other merchants that rather than be held up for failing to comply with the ordinance they would trade elsewhere." A resolution was passed to create a committee to advise City Council on what downtown wanted for traffic enforcement, and by the end of the year the part of the ordinance was repealed that made U-turns illegal in the middle of the street. The police officers, who had been "busier than bird dogs" when the new laws took effect, also backed off writing tickets.
But come the beginning of 1913, enough was enough. According to the Press Democrat, "Every effort has been made to instruct the traveling public in the new ordinance and to give them the benefit of all doubt. Recently a man has been placed on duty at Fourth and Mendocino avenue, to enforce the ordinance, and he has barely escaped being run down repeatedly himself."
It seems Santa Rosa's driving maniacs were keeping to the proper lane only on the straight-away, but when they made turns some were cutting the corner dangerously. "Plans are being made to place officers on duty at various corners in the city without further warning and arrest every one who fails to make proper turns...A string of fines will, it is believed, have the most effect that warnings have failed to give," noted the PD.
Of course, this gave the city cops – who already had great discretionary power to judge who was speeding, in those days before radar guns or other tools – the ability to write tickets based on the degree to which they thought drivers strayed out of their lanes while turning. "It will also enrich the city treasury," the PD added. You bet it would.
LOOK OUT! DON'T VIOLATE THE LAWTraffic Ordinance Regulations Regarding Cutting of Corners, Etc., Will Be Strictly Enforced NowOwing to the persistent ignoring of the traffic ordinance by auto and team drivers, drastic steps looking to a strict enforcement of the measure. Every effort has been made to instruct the traveling public in the new ordinance and to give them the benefit of all doubt. Recently a man has been placed on duty at Fourth and Mendocino avenue, to enforce the ordinance, and he has barely escaped being run down repeatedly himself.
Plans are being made to place officers on duty at various corners in the city without further warning and arrest every one who fails to make proper turns. The law is made for the safety of drivers as well as of those in vehicles, and when an accident occurs it is always because some one has ignored the right of road.
Monday afternoon a motorcycle was run down at the above-named corner, owing to an auto driver ignoring the law and cutting the corners. The police are determined that the practice shall be stopped. A string of fines will, it is believed, have the most effect that warnings have failed to give. It will also enrich the city treasury.
- Press Democrat, February 11, 1913
WARNING GIVEN AUTO DRIVERSMust Carry Tail Lights as Required by Law or Arrests are Likely to FollowThe attention of the police department has been called to the fact that many of the automobilists are not observing the law in regards to carrying tail lights on their machines. Several rear end collisions have been narrowly averted of late.
Chief of Police John M. Boyes wishes automobile drivers to see to it that they carry lights as prescribed by law, and which includes a tail light. He hopes this warning will be obeyed immediately or else arrest and prosecutions will follow. A lamp in time means the saving of a fine.
- Press Democrat, January 28, 1912
AUTOS AND MOTOR CYCLES MUST ALL BE MUFFLEDThere are doubtless many people who will give vent to a fervent "Amen," or something of the sort equally as expressive when they read that at last night's council meeting an ordinance was introduced by Chairman R. L. Johnston, and passed the first reading, which provides among other things for the use of mufflers on all automobiles, motor cars and motorcycles driven or ridden in the city limits. When this ordinance is adopted it will mean the ending of a decided nusiance.
The ordinance contemplated also provides strict regulation for the observance of the rules of the road, compelling drivers of machines, etc., upon meeting each other to go always to the right, and in overtaking to go to the left. It also provides for the proper turning of street corners and a number of other desirable changes from the old order of things, which daily causes much confusion.
It also provides that after nightfall all automobiles, motorcycles and ordinary bicycles shall carry lights. There are many other requirements in this ordinance which was referred back to the Ordinance Committee.
- Press Democrat, May 22, 1912
CITY FATHERS TRANSACT BIG VOLUME OF BUSINESS[..]
An ordinance regulating the driving of automobiles, motorcycles and bicycles in this city was adopted. It provides that mufflers on motor vehicles be closed; that all motor vehicles pass to the right, and to take to the right side of the street. In passing vehicles of all kinds from the rear, motor vehicles must turn to the left, while the one in front must turn to the right, and that on the business streets motor vehicles must not turn around except on street corners. In turning into a street, the motor vehicles must keep to the center of the street crossing. With the exception of motorcycles all motor vehicles must maintain two white lights facing to the front and a red tail light one hour after sunset.
Bicycle and motorcycle riders must not ride without having hands on their handlebars. Vehicles must run to the edge of the curb and stop when the fire bell rings. The penalty for disobeying the ordinance is a fine from $10 to $250 for each offense.
- Press Democrat, June 5, 1912
TRAFFIC SQUAD BUSY SATURDAYMany People Express Indignation Over Law
The Santa Rosa traffic squad, consisting of Officer I. N. Lindley and Officer George W. Mathews, had a busy day on Saturday. As one of them expressed it, they had been "busier than bird dogs," and at nightfall they felt that they had doubly earned their stipend.
It was the duty of these officers to instruct drivers of vehicles in the new ordinance which has been adopted and to them many persons expressed disapproval of the new law in the most expressive terms. One man even declared he would never return to Santa Rosa again.
Several times during the day it seemed that trouble would ensue and that arrests would have to be made. These were avoided, however. After a certain time in instructing the people, arrests will be made for violations of the ordinance.
- Santa Rosa Republican, June 15, 1912
MERCHANTS DISCUSS THE NEW TRAFFIC ORDINANCEMany Present at the Meeting Held Last Night
The special feature of business at the meeting of the Chamber of Commerce Thursday night was a discussion of the new traffic ordinance. There was the largest attendance of the members that has been noticed in some time, and the interest taken in the discussion was very marked. Many business men of the city participated and gave their view. Two resolution prevailed.
[Resolution to create three member committee to advise City Council]
A further resolution, offered by A. O. Erwin and seconded by Max Rosenberg and carried was to the effect that the present ordinance, inasmuch as it provides a regulation that traffic keep to the right, is all that should really apply to Santa Rosa at the present time, this suggestion not including, of course, those regulations regarding speeding, riding on sidewalks, lights and other essentials for the safety of the public alson in the ordinance.
Among those who spoke on the subject were...
One of the main faults found with the ordinance by the speakers at the meeting was the requirement that wagons be unloaded alongside the curb and not permitting wagons to be backed up against the curb at heretofore. It was stated by several that in large cities where similar ordinances are in force wagons are allowed fifteen minutes to unload or load while backed up against the sidewalk.
Another objection was the requirement that people drive to the corners of streets before they can turn around. An opinion was expressed that this requirement rather aggravated instead of relieved congestion.
It was suggested that people be permitted to turn in the center of the street, where it could be done without putting traffic in a hazardous condition.
Not Criticizing Council
It should be stated that the speakers made it plain that they were not speaking in a spirit of criticism of the City Council's enactment of the traffic ordinance, but rather in the interests of the city as many of their patrons had told them and many other merchants that rather than be held up for failing to comply with the ordinance they would trade elsewhere.
[..]
- Press Democrat, June 26, 1912
TRAFFIC ORDINANCE IS AMENDED FRIDAY EVENINGPersons May Turn Any Place Desired From Present TimeMayor Jack Mercier and members of the city council passed an amendment to the traffic ordinance at a meeting of the city fathers held on Friday evening.
Under the terms of the amendment section five was permitted so as to permit teamsters and drivers of any kind of vehicles to turn any place on the streets without the necessity of going to the intersecting corners, as was necessary under the former ordinance.
The ordinance regarding vehicles keeping to the right side of the street is still in full force and effect and all vehicles must turn to the left in reversing their direction on the street.
Many persons will hear with pleasure that the obnoxious section of the ordinance requiring the going to intersecting streets has been abolished and that they may turn at will wherever they find it necessary or take the notion.
- Santa Rosa Republican, August 17, 1912
Congratulations, Attorney Allison Ware, the judge ruled in your favor over Attorney Allison Ware, whose pettifogging argument reveals him to be utterly incompetent.
It's too bad Robert Ripley was still years away from starting his Believe It or Not! column; he would have loved this 1911 situation in his hometown of Santa Rosa, where the same lawyer represented the plaintiff in one case and the defendant in another, with the same legal question pivotal in both cases. No matter how the court ruled, Attorney Ware would probably win one of the cases and lose the other. And this crazy, double-edged sword of a situation didn't happen in different places and different times - Ware was asking for a decision from a judge at the same hearing, simultaneously arguing for and against the same point. This was a man who could obviously walk and chew gum at the same time, and probably whistle as well.
One case involved the late Pincus Levin, who was a partner in the Levin Brothers Tannery, Santa Rosa's largest employer at the time. Levin died in a spectacular Marin county train crash in August, 1910, when twelve were killed as steam locomotives collided head-on. "The two engines reared into the air and locked themselves in deadly embrace," reported The Press Democrat luridly. The Levin family sued the railroad for $25,000, and Ware was their lawyer.
The other case was a suit over the wrongful death of a Chinese-American man named Young Chow, who was struck by an automobile and killed at "Gwynn's Corners", which was the intersection of Old Redwood Highway and Mark West. His family filed suit against the driver of the car for $5,000 and Ware represented the driver.
Here's the legal issue that was being asked: Could a lawsuit on behalf of a "non-resident alien" be filed in California? Young Chow's beneficiaries were to be his wife and two children in China. Pincus Levin, an unmarried 28 year-old Russian-Pole who had emigrated to America ten years earlier, presumably named his parents or other relatives in the old country.
The question was pretty much a Constitution 101 no-brainer: All that mattered was that the wrongful deaths occurred within the United States. The 5th amendment guarantees "no person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and the 14th Amendment further emphasizes due process is not restricted to just U.S. citizens: "Nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Constitution didn't care that neither Pincus Levin and Young Chow were citizens, and didn't care where any award for damages would be going. Even Chinese immigrants, who endured all manner of legal discrimination otherwise, were specifically guaranteed equal protection under the 14th Amendment by a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886).
Thus Ware and the other lawyers went before a Superior Court judge in San Francisco and were told that no, you can't throw out a case just because the money would be going to China or Poland or wherever. It was a victory for Ware in the railroad lawsuit and a setback for Ware in the automobile lawsuit.
Curiously, no newspaper editorialized about how damned odd it was for Ware to show up at a court hearing wearing two hats. The Press Democrat mentioned it in passing and implied Ware felt the railroad was making a Hail Mary Pass by raising the issue but appended the automobile suit to the motion because it couldn't hurt so why the hell not:
| "Attorney Ware thought at the time there was no merit in the contention and that he could easily defeat such a proposition of law. However, he brought forward the same point in the suit of the Chinese administrator against Charles Patchett of Healdsburg. This was done in order that if the point was sustained in the court by Judge Hunt that it could be taken advantage of in the court here." |
How did these lawsuits end? Nothing more about the Levin case appeared in the papers, so it was presumably settled out of court quickly after the judge's ruling. The railroad had no other defense; the coroner's jury had already decided the railway was guilty of gross negligence. There is a footnote to the story, however. Levin was on the train because he had just obtained $6,000 (about $150,000 today) in "negotiable paper" from a San Francisco bank and the document wasn't among his remains. The newspapers never explained exactly what it was - most likely some sort of bonds - but press coverage invariably mentioned it "could be cashed by anyone." Some historians have since claimed it was never found, but that's not true; a man on the wreck clean-up crew picked it up from the ground but didn't understand what it was, and once he realized it was valuable, promptly turned it over to the bank.
The Young Chow case went to trial, but not before Attorney Ware filed a motion claiming the victim caused the fatal accident by turning his bicycle into the path of the car. (This was not the first auto fatality in the Santa Rosa area; the previous year a nine-year old boy was run over at the corner of Third and B and the coroner's jury found the child was at fault for dashing in front of the car without looking.)
The jury decided in favor of the plaintiff, awarding Young Chow's heirs $2,500. (Did it help that the lawyers for Chow made sure no juror owned an automobile?) The jury also found the driver was negligent in going too fast and lied about tooting his horn as a warning. There's a footnote to this story as well: Young Chow was killed when he was bicycling back to Santa Rosa from the ranch of Harrison Finley, the grandfather of Helen Finley Comstock. Long-time readers of this journal may recall that Mr. Finley had his own dangerous encounter with an auto in 1908, when a driver crashed into a wagon carrying him and most of his family. After this death of his employee, Harrison Finley had another reason to be distrustful of the new horseless contraptions.
The final score for Attorney Allison B. Ware was 1-1, winning the Levin case and losing the Young Chow judgement. These were among his final appearances in court; he was 64 and would live about another three years. His son Wallace later wrote an autobiography titled "The Unforgettables" that recalled his father as a jovial man with a talent for persuasion. He arrived in San Francisco in 1855 and later told his children it was then a "fecund mulching bed of frolicsome fillies and gay Lotharios." His first job, at age 18, was running a school for incorrigible youths. He succeeded by appointing six of the toughest guys to be "captains," ordering them to disarm their fellow hoodlums and keep them in line. In exchange he promised the boys a night off every week that would wrap up with an expenses-paid visit to "a friendly resort, where the ladies are always pliant, gracious, sweet, smiling and co-operative."Ware eventually became the Sonoma County District Attorney, settling down with his family of six children at 1041 College Avenue, calling their home the "Ware Hatchery." It was one of the few residences seriously damaged in the 1906 earthquake (pictures and a story here) but they rebuilt at the same location. He loved kids, hosting neighborhood spelling bees and awarding jelly bean prizes. In 1904 the family threw a birthday party for daughter Mabel where the highlight was a guessing game with the mesmerizing question, "How old is Mr. Ware?" Only a very persuasive lawyer could pull that off as children's party entertainment.
CHINESE IS KILLED BY AUTOHurled in Air by Impact and Run Over by Machine
A Chinese employed on the Harrison Finley hop ranch, on the Mark West road, just off the main Healdsburg road, was struck by an automobile on Friday afternoon. The accident occurred near Gwynn's Corners, and the Chinese was so badly injured that he passed away in a couple of hours. The dead man was riding a bicycle at the time of the accident, and must have become confused or attempted to cross the road in front of the rapidly approaching automobile.
When the auto struck the man he was hurled some distance in the air, and fell directly in front of the machine. The heavy automobile then ran over the Chinese and mashed him considerably. The injured man was carried into a near-by residence by those in the auto and Dr. R. M. Bonar was summoned to attend him. From the first it was seen that injured man could not survive and Dr. Bonar did all he could to relieve his sufferings.
The name of the driver of the auto which struck the Chinese was not learned. On Saturday morning Undertaker Wilson C. Smith went out to the residence where the Chinese passed away and brought the remains to this city.
- Santa Rosa Republican, April 22, 1911
SMALL ESTATE OF CHINAMANYoung Chow Left Fifty Dollars for Relatives Who Reside in the Chinese Empire
The first petition in a long time in the estate of a deceased Chinaman was filed on Thursday in the matter of the estate of Young Chow. Chow did not die possessed of much of this world's goods. He left some cash and personal property valued at fifty dollars. Young Yup is the petitioner, and the petition sets forth that the next of the kin of the deceased are Joe Shee, his wife, and two children in Pong Woo, China. Attorney R. L. Thompson is the attorney for the estate.
- Press Democrat, June 19, 1911
SUES FOR $5,000 FOR DEATH OF CHINAMAN
The predicted damage suit growing out of the killing by an automobile of Young Chow, a Chinaman, by Charles Patchett, on the Healdsburg road near Gwynn's Corners, some two months ago, was commenced in the Superior Court yesterday by Young Yup, who has been named administrator of the Chow estate. Attorney R. L. Thompson represents the plaintiff. The dead man has a wife and two children in China and the suit in their interest. It is charged in the complaint that Patchett was driving his automobile in a fast and reckless manner at the time he struck Chow, who only loved a short time after the accident. The defendant is charged with carelessness and negligence. At the time of the accident Chow was riding a bicycle.
At the conclusion of the testimony the Court took the matter under advisement and it stands submitted.
- Press Democrat, June 21, 1911
CAN NON-RESIDENT ALIEN PROSECUTE A SUIT HERE?New Point Raised in Court Here on Monday
Can a non-resident alien prosecute an action in the courts of California?
This is a new question urged in Judge Seawell's department of the Superior Court here Monday morning by Attorney Allison R. Ware in the suit for $5,000 damaged brought by Young Lup, a Chinaman as the administrator of the estate of Young Chow, also a Celestial, who was run down and killed while riding a bicycle on the Healdsburg road near Gwynn's Corners. Charles H. Patchett, who was riding in the automobile is the defendant, and negligence is charged against him by the plaintiff.
J. M. Thompson and Rolfe L. Thompson represent the plaintiff and Allison B. Ware is counsel for the defendant. The case came up on argument Monday morning, and Mr. Ware claimed that a non-resident man cannot maintain a suit in the courts in this state. The suit is brought in behalf of Chow's relatives in China. A similar point is being made by the Northwestern Pacific railroad in answering the suit for damages brought by the late Pincus Levin, who was killed in the railroad wreck at Ignacio where a number of persons lost their lives some time since.
Judge Seawell took the matter under advisement and his decision is awaited with considerable interest.
- Press Democrat, June 26, 1911
NON-RESIDENT CAN BRING SUITAttorneys Ware and Berry Win in San Francisco
Attorney Allison B. Ware and Jos. P. Berry won an important legal decision in San Francisco on Friday when they presented an elaborate argument to Judge Hunt of the superior court there, on the question as to whether a non-resident alien can bring and maintain an action in the courts.
The local attorneys represent Nate Levin, who as administrator of the estate of the late Pincus Levin, has sued the Northwestern Pacific railroad for damages. The suit grows out of the collision at Ignacio in which Levin and others were instantly killed.
Judge Hunt made the ruling direct from the bench that a non-resident could maintain an action in the courts and this establishes the standing of Mr. Levin at once.
The point was brought up by the attorneys for the railroad in this suit and Attorney Ware thought at the time there was no merit in the contention and that he could easily defeat such a proposition of law. However, he brought forward the same point in the suit of the Chinese administrator against Charles Patchett of Healdsburg. This was done in order that if the point was sustained in the court by Judge Hunt that it could be taken advantage of in the court here.
Judge Hunt has consented to hear the case of Levin against the railroad in Marin county, but the preliminary argument on the demurrer was made in the court at San Francisco on Friday. Attorneys Ware and Berry feel much elated at this victory.
- Santa Rosa Republican, June 30, 1911
CLAIM CHINAMAN WAS TO BLAME FOR DEATH
In an answer filed in the office of County Clerk William W. Felt, Jr., on Monday, in the suit of Young Yup, administrator of the estate of Young Chow, against Charles Patchett. It is claimed that Young Lup [sic] was responsible for the accident that caused his death. The Chinese was killed in a collision with Patchett's automobile near Gwynn's Corners last summer, and the answer sets up that the negligence of the Chinese in turning to the left side of the road instead of to the right side, was responsible for the collision. Attorneys Allison B. Ware and Phil Ware represent the defendant.
- Santa Rosa Republican, October 10, 1911
AUTOMOBILISTS ARE NOT WANTED ON JURY
Owners of automobiles were not wanted on the jury now trying toe damage suit of Young Lup vs. C. H. Patchett. During the examination of talesmen in Judge Seawell's Department of the Superior Court here yesterday, counsel for the plaintiff queried each man as to whether he was the owner of automobiles were excused. An automobile figures prominently in this case, as the plaintiff appears as representative of the heirs of Young Chow, a Chinese, who was killed by an automobile on the Healdsburg road near Gwynn's Corners.
- Press Democrat, January 10, 1912
$2,500 DAMAGES AWARDED FOR DEATH OF CHINAMANPlaintiff Wins in Trial In Judge Seawell's Court
Charles H. Patchett, the defendant was the last witness called in the suit brought against him by Young Lup, administrator of the estate of Young Chow, claiming $5,000 damages for the death of Chow by alleged carelessness of the defendant while driving his automobile on the Healdsburg road near Gwynn's Corners.
Mr. Patchett testified, as did other witnesses on the previous day, that he was driving carefully at the time, that he sounded his horn a number of times and also shouted to the Chinaman before the accident happened. He claimed that the Chinaman, who was riding a bicycle, turned from the track in which he was riding on the road and swerved in front of the auto. Mr. Patchett claimed the accident was unavoidable. There was some conflict of testimony as to the speed at which the automobile was being driven at the time of the collision, but Patchett maintained that he had slowed down at the time he attempted to pass the Chinaman.
Attorney Allison B. Ware, with whom was associated Phil Ware for the defendant, took the witness through a very careful examination, as did Attorney Rolfe L. Thompson, for the plaintiff, when he took hold of the witness.
Before the noon adjournment Attorney Thompson had made his opening arguments to the jury, claiming that Patchett had been negligent and that the accident could have been avoided. Counsel made a strong speech.
When court resumed in the afternoon Attorney Allison B. Ware argued the case to the jury for the side of the defendant, making a powerful case of the facts and evidence adduced and denying any negligence of carelessness on the part of Mr. Patchett.
Attorney Thompson replied to the argument of counsel for the defense in another strong speech to the jury. Judge Seawell then delivered his charge to the jury.
The jury retired to consider the verdict shortly before five o'clock. At six o'clock they were taken to "Little Pete's" restaurant for supper in charge of Deputy Sheriff Donald McIntosh and returned shortly after seven. It was nine o'clock before they had agreed upon a verdict.
The jury found for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,500 and also answered the following special interrogatories submitted:
Was the defendant riding at a rapid rate of speed at the time of the accident? --Yes.
Did the defendant operate and manage the automobile in a negligent and careless manner at the time of and immediately prior to the said accident? --Yes.
Did the defendant cause the said automobile to slow up and lessen the speed thereof? --Yes.
Did the defendant sound the automobile horn and warn Young Chow in a timely manner? --No.
Did Young Chow, by his own negligence, contribute proximately to the resulting in life death? --No.
Did Young Chow, plaintiff intestate, when the defendant was approaching on the left side of the road in the automobile, carelessly and negligently drive the bicycle on which said young Chow was riding in front of the said automobile on the left hand side of the road? --No.
Counsel for the defense have asked for a stay of execution for thirty days. It is expected that a motion for a new trial will be made.
- Press Democrat, January 12, 1912
Santa Rosa probably looked like it was evacuated that spring. From houses with drawn curtains could be heard the ringing of unanswered telephones, I imagine, and screen doors were likely jammed with calling cards. Or maybe it looked like the town was under quarantine; those who couldn't avoid going downtown to shop or work no doubt hurried as fast as possible, avoiding eye contact at all costs. Was there an outbreak of plague? A great natural disaster? A bank collapse? Nope; it was the Press Democrat's Kline Kar Kontest of 1911.
Oh, it started off innocently enough, all sunshine and roses. It was just the "Press Democrat Popular Ladies' Voting Contest" to build up newspaper circulation. Someone would win a nice prize. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Everything about the contest was unusual, starting with the prize. The lucky winner would take home a "Kline Kar" which was no cheap jalopy; it was a handmade, high-end roadster that was arguably the finest automobile sold in America at the time. Why, it was such a terrific car that young Hilliard Comstock purchased one and drove it back to Santa Rosa from Sausalito in high gear without destroying the engine (he apparently did not know how to use a gearshift) - an otherwise minor news story the PD featured on the front page because the contest had just launched.
Also quite unusual was that the contest was only open to "any woman (married or single) residing in Sonoma County." In those days there were very few women drivers, much less women car owners; the only exception ever mentioned in the PD was the amazing Dorothy Farmer (think Farmer's Lane) who bought a Packard in Los Angeles three years earlier and drove it all the way home on the rutty wagon trails that passed for roads. But this was also 1911, which was the year of the campaign for women's suffrage in California and making the contest women-only could have been a nod towards bringing a bit more equitable balance to the roadways. Cynics might also wonder if eliminating men from the contest was a sexist gambit expecting the guys would help the gals "cheat."
And make no mistake, it was certain to be a hard-fought contest. Newspapers were far more expensive than today, compared to the median household income in Santa Rosa. A subscription cost 50¢ a month, no discount for longer signups - that's over twice the present relative cost to have the Press Democrat land on your doorstep every morning. Thus if Miss Newton convinced Uncle Charlie, a typical wage-earner, to subscribe to the PD for five years, he would be sending in nearly three weeks pay. Or once again, in modern terms: She was asking someone to write the Press Democrat a check for over $3,300 - quite the pricey commitment.
The contest was also set up to disguise the actual number of subscriptions and renewals. Signing up a new subscriber for three months gained you 500 votes; a five year signup was good for 25,000. Subscription renewals were good for half as many. There were bonus votes for enrolling in the contest early and there were promotions that awarded extra votes for longer subscriptions.
The sixty day contest began March 22 and the paper urged women to move fast: "Enlist the aid of your friends and neighbors in securing subscriptions and coupons for you," read the instructions in the first ad, shown at right. "Keep 'Central' busy; use your telephone. Let everyone know that you are a candidate before they promise their help to someone else."
Two weeks later, the newspaper turned up the heat; for the next seven days, subscriptions for a year or longer would be triple value - a five year commitment was now worth 75,000 votes. "No Greater Offer, Nor as Good an Offer as This Will be Given Again, Nor Will This Offer be Repeated," the PD headline clamored. It was also when we were introduced to Mr. Contest Editor.
Over the next six weeks he cheered, encouraged, cajoled and bullied contestants into working harder. He was never named; we can't even be sure he was a "he" although he sometimes referred to himself with male pronouns. From his snappy style it is apparent he was not a regular Press Democrat staffer. He was probably youngish, aspired to write the Great American Novel (or certain he already had) and believed he was 110 percent smarter than thou. I can picture him with his feet up on a desk, a straw boater tipped back on his head and chewing a stick of Juicy Fruit as he sarcastically read his latest contest advice to chortling newsboys.
His early columns sounded earnest and friendly: "The contest editor does not say what will be doing in votes after April 12, but this increase of votes will be changed and it will be surprisingly LOWER than it is now. Vote values will decrease from NOW on, they will never be higher; this the Press Democrat promises you...There are more than six weeks left until the close, and you could go over this whole county a dozen times before then."
Nearly every day the Press Democrat printed portraits of the leaders along with their totals in the "Roll of Honor." Mrs. Crone is out front on Wednesday; the next day it's Miss Liggett of Third Street. The daily article about the contest sometimes had a sentence or two about each of them. Mrs. E. Crone: "If grit counts for anything, look out." Miss Nellie Hansen of Sebastopol "bids fair to give her friendly opponents a merry chase." Miss Doris Sullivan of Graton "is determined to represent that little town good and strong." Mr. Contest Editor was proud of them all.
But after fifteen days, only four contestants had reached the 75,000 vote mark. It looked like there were no generous Uncle Charlies writing big checks to favorite nieces.
With the contest almost halfway around the track, it's reasonable that Press Democrat editor Ernest Finley probably worried that it was starting to look like a flop, and the paper could even lose money on the promotion. And that was when the tone turned less cheery. The first hint of exasperation appeared: "It takes absolutely no experience to get subscriptions to the Press Democrat. It's a staple article...so many people want the paper that they cannot be reached by an agent, and subscriptions by the hundreds are waiting all over the county for candidates to simply come and get them for the asking." Goodbye peppy cheerleader, hello, angry sales manager. Let's show some hustle out there, people!
The paper also launched new promotions. Despite the promise vote values will "never be higher" than the first promo, a limited offer was announced: For a few days, new bonuses would be awarded for subscriptions that could be bundled together into multiples of five years and the offer was retroactive to the previous Thursday (don't even try to figure this out). Again Mr. Contest Editor promised: "Subscriptions will never be worth as many votes again." Except three days after that promotion ended, there was another "big offer" increasing the base vote values for all subscriptions.
Obviously, there was some grumbling about these one-time-only deals that weren't. Mister Contest Editor wanted it known this hurt his feelings:
| You know that the Contest Editor has kept his promise. You know that the Contest Editor will continue to keep his promises, and you know that the Press Democrat has never broken faith with any of its candidates both in the past and present. Heed the word and promises of the Contest Editor. He is your only counselor. If the Press Democrat had ever broken faith with any of its candidates it never would have inaugurated this contest. |
Aside from developing headaches and whiplash trying to follow the latest voting offers, the thirty women who were the most serious contenders must have been experiencing something like battle fatigue. Winning a deLuxe auto sounded like fun and the contest was fun at the start but after several weeks you've signed up everyone you know and everyone your friends know and now you dread getting up in the morning to spend another awful day of bothering people who don't want to be bothered and already had been bothered by several of your competitors. It would also be natural if they felt despair; after two months of work, 29 of them would come away with...nothing. There was no second or third prize, no sales commission, no tote bag. Not even a complementary newspaper subscription.
The later columns by the Contest Editor address the women in the competition directly, and are more than a little creepy as he resorted to using shame as a motivation.
You are letting yourself down:
| Good merry contestants, here's another chance. If in the past few days you have been dissatisfied with the efforts you have been making; if you think you have not done right by yourself and the ones who have stood by you for the past five weeks, here is an opportunity to make restitution and repent, an opportunity within a few days time to eclipse the vote of your closest rival, an opportunity to rid yourself of the anxiety of having enough votes to be assured of success. It is given as an opportunity to allow those a fair chance who were visited with illness last week. Several of the candidates, or their families, were under the weather. |
Your friends are letting you down:
| Now, candidates all--are you going to keep up this fierce struggle for all times until the end. Why don't some one of you be the exceptional one. Do as the Contest Editor has been advising you to do for weeks. Get your friends in tow. Hand each and every one of them a receipt book and pledge them by their friendship to you to see that they all get a few subscriptions each. You have been trying it single handed for eight weeks. There is something the matter. |
You are letting the Contest Editor down:
| If there is any good reason why you can't stay at the top, the Contest Editor would like to hear it. the Contest Editor would like to have a personal talk every day with every candidate in the race. That's why he is writing to you every day through the Press Democrat. There are perhaps many candidates who will read these paragraphs, and that is all. Had the Contest Editor ever advised you in error you would have a good excuse not to consider every word that is written every day. |
The Contest Editor is disappointed and disgusted by you:
| Ask yourself this question: Have you heeded the advice of the Contest Editor from the beginning of this contest? In other words, have you kept busy, and will you keep busier than ever during the last three days of this contest? Of course, if you are satisfied with what you have and feel that you have all the votes you need, there is no reason in the world why you should exert yourself another moment. |
Mr. Contest Editor was probably wise not to use his real name, as by that time there probably were thirty husbands or boyfriends who would have liked to give him a good poke in the snoot.But finally it was over, and the winner was to be announced at 10PM on Saturday evening, May 20. The front page story the next morning - decidedly not written by Mr. Contest Editor - described what happened:
| ...The mass of people that the contest editor predicted would witness the closing of the contest commenced to gather at 9:30 last evening and from that time on until 10 o'clock a steady stream of people worked their way into the Press Democrat office. The loyal candidates with their representatives were all present, and the great throng became a guessing machine as to who would win. Patiently they waited until the town clock tolled 10 o'clock. The doors were promptly locked and all the candidates that were inside were given an opportunity to cast their last ballots... ...The candidates grouped themselves together while the count of votes were going on, chatted good naturedly and joked regarding their chances. They went into the race knowing that but one of them could win and were ready to abide by the decision of the ballots... ...The judges then pronounced the count correct and the throng held themselves spellbound for the name of the winner. Mayor Edwards then called off the totals and pronounced Mrs. Ed Crone of Santa Rosa the winner of the big five-passenger Kline Touring Kar. A cheer went up from the crowd and Mrs. Crone and all that could pile in to it went out of the Press Democrat doors with a jubilant "Honk-Honk." |
Boy, what a surprise! In the last published "Roll of Honor," Mrs. Crone was back in fifth place, with 739,260 votes - and now she was the big winner with 3,143,660. Wait - huh? She had concealed millions of votes until the last minute? Apparently so, and likewise four other finalists had kept their cards close, ending with million-plus totals.
If Gentle Reader thinks there's something fishy about those astronomical numbers, you have company. My first question is how these mountains of subscriptions were credited; did the judges apply whatever screwy vote multiplier happened to be in effect at the time of the subscription order? Could the judges have physically counted that many new paper ballots on a late Saturday night? And what was to prevent the contestants from backdating all her "reserve subscriptions" to the earliest days of the contest, when votes had the highest values? If I were someone like Lillian Norris - whose final count was only a realistic 13,000 votes above her last Roll of Honor tally - I'd have called foul.
Still, there was nothing suspicious about identity of the winner: Mary J. Crone was the 36 year-old wife of Edwin Crone, the manager of Santa Rosa's three nickelodeon and vaudeville theaters. It's doubtful anyone else in Sonoma County came into contact with so many people on a regular basis. (Your OBL Believe-it-or-not angle: Her brother-in-law, Raymond, later worked in Hollywood as the production manager for Orson Welles, Fred Astaire and others. Ed and Mary stayed around and ended up as chicken farmers south of town).
Although the event is now completely lost in history's dust, the Kline Kar Kontest left a sizable impact crater. In its front page article on the results, the PD crowed, "without the slightest doubt the circulation of the Press Democrat is now the largest in any city North of the Bay Counties, and has a great deal more than double the circulation of any paper in Sonoma County." And the greater the circulation, the more they could charge for ads, so the promotion went far to entrench the PD as the voice of "Imperial Sonoma."
Thanks in great measure to the goadings of Mr. Contest Editor, the acrimonious contest no doubt left scars in the community, destroying friendships and straining family ties; I imagine it became one of those regrettable events one hopes relatives won't bring up at reunions. But if you climbed into a time machine and went back to the 1920s or 1930s and asked Santa Rosans what they remembered about 1911, chances are they wouldn't remember the suffrage vote (memory of it would have been eclipsed by passage of the 19th amendment) or Fred Wiseman's flight from Petaluma to Santa Rosa (it wasn't recognized as the historic first airmail delivery until much later). But they likely remembered it was the spring of the damn car contest, when the doorbell and telephone rang so often it left everyone a bit twitchy.