I See by the Papers...

1912 was a pretty good year for the Santa Rosa newspapers, particularly for readers fond of mysteries concerning violent killings.

Shocking murders were usually big-city crimes in the early 20th century, but starting in 1910 Sonoma County had more than its share of sordid headlines. Reporters from as far away as Los Angeles camped out here that year to cover the arrest and trial of Dr. Willard Burke, a respected and wealthy physician accused of trying to kill his mistress and their child with a stick of dynamite. Also in 1910 was the gruesome slaughter of the Kendall family near Cazadero, where the killer was never caught or positively identified. The following year saw a scandalous double suicide in Santa Rosa caused, in part, by vigilante behavior of a popular woman's club in town – a story the local papers tried to suppress, but still made Bay Area front pages.

Then in early 1912, this headline appeared in the Press Democrat: "KILLS CHICKEN AND THEN BLOWS OFF HIS OWN HEAD". Well, that's something you don't read about every day.

The short article stated a farmer near Two Rock "killed a chicken and carried its bleeding carcass into his room in the ranch house, and then sat on the edge of the bed and blew off the top of his head," reported the PD, adding unnecessarily, "death was instantaneous."

But as it turned out, the paper got nearly everything wrong.

The farmer's body was found in the kitchen, not the bedroom, he had been shot in the chest and not the head, and he did not die immediately. The farmhand who said he found his boss on the floor with the gun between his legs lived long enough to say, "I'm dying."

Coroner Frank L. Blackburn and other officials met at the scene the next day where they tried to interpret the evidence. John Albertoni had been killed by a direct blast from the shotgun found on the floor. Still presuming suicide, they couldn't figure out how he might have done it, try as they might. "The man has unusually short arms, and it is said he could not have reached the trigger," the Press Democrat reported. "He had his boots on and could not have the shot with his toes. There was no stick, no string and nothing with which he could have discharged the gun." They even considered whether the chicken might have flailed about and fired the shot. Attention turned to the man who found the body, farmhand Rocco Zanetti. He was arrested and taken to the jail in Petaluma.

Zanetti – who spoke no English, an important detail not mentioned by the local newspapers – was questioned through an interpreter at the coroner's jury. It was announced suicide had been completely ruled out. Hearing that from the interpreter, Zanetti asked  the interpreter for advice on whether he should "tell the whole truth," apparently believing any fellow Italian who knew English would provide sound legal advice. After being told he should 'fess up, Zanetti talked to the prosecutor.

According to the San Francisco Call, he confessed through the interpreter: "It was an accident. Albertoni had killed a rooster with the gun, which was a new one. We were joking about the bad job he had done and Albertoni handed me the gun and said: 'See if you can do better.'  Albertoni told me that it held but one shell but did not tell me that it was cocked. It being a new gun, and I being unfamiliar with it, pulled the trigger by accident and the shot struck Albertoni in the breast."

It sounded fairly plausible, including the part of the confession where Zanetti admitted he was frightened to admit his role, although the jury also heard testimony that the two men had recently quarreled over something. The verdict was that Zanetti had indeed shot his employer, but the jury made no recommendation on how to charge him.

But the prosecutor was unable to prove maliciousness and couldn't gain traction on the curious detail of the double-barreled shotgun containing only one spent shell. Rocco Zanetti was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to ten years at Folsom State Prison. He was released in 1918 and died in 1954 at San Diego.



"Adam Clark is a boy who apparently never had a chance," the Press Democrat explained to readers in its unusual coverage of court proceedings later that year. "He started and looked inquiringly at the Court when he was told something about a mother's love. He did not know what was meant."

The reporting was unusual because "sob sister" journalism rarely, if ever, appeared in the PD during that era. It was also unusual because the youth being described so sympathetically had just committed the premeditated murder of his mother.

Fifteen year-old Adam Clark was not on trial in the Santa Rosa courtroom that morning; the hearing was a Superior Court investigation to determine what should become of him, as per the landmark Juvenile Court laws passed in 1909 and discussed in the previous item. Instead of prison or county jail for anyone under 21 who committed a serious crime, the emphasis was now on rehabilitation.

The crime was front page headline news in the Santa Rosa papers, and because of its sensational nature the story was spotlighted in Bay Area newspapers as well. Details vary; it's not clear whether some reporters were able to question the boy or were just making stuff up or repeating hearsay. The version of his confession that appeared in the San Francisco Call is comically absurd, making him sound like a two-bit gangster, sneering and defiant even as he spills his guts to the coppers.

From the various accounts it seems certain Adam was developmentally disabled. The Press Democrat stated he was "fifteen as years are counted, but possibly about seven or eight when reckoned by the degree of mentality he possesses." He seemed to feel little or no remorse or grasp the severity of his crime other than understanding he would be punished for it, in some way. It's not even certain he intended to kill his mother or if he just wanted to make her sick as payback because "[she] always gave me the dickens." As a result of these ambiguities, papers such as the Call looked at him and saw a scheming murderer while the PD painted him as an abused child.

All that can be said with certainty about the backstory is that Augusta Clark and her teenage son were not getting along that summer. The youngest of five children and apparently the only one still living at their place west of Windsor, Adam was working on a traveling crew of hay balers and coming home only on Sundays for a change of clothes. Recently she had demanded his boss fire him and threatened to send Adam to a reformatory. We don't know, however, if she objected to that job in particular or instead wanted him to work somewhere else, such as on their family farm. We also don't know if he was still attending school, but in that era a great many kids his age were employed somewhere full time. At the same age of 15 his sister, Ethel, was working as a servant, according to the 1910 census.

What we do know as absolute fact is Adam returned home on Sunday, July 28 and found his mother was out. He grabbed a handful of 'Rough on Rats' and dumped it into the coffee canister and sugar bowl. That particular rat poison contained forty percent arsenic.

The next day, when Adam was back at the farmworker's camp, his mother began feeling sick. Augusta had such a violent headache she asked for a neighbor's help and a doctor was called. She stayed with her neighbor briefly and her condition improved. Once she returned home, however, she immediately became ill again. Her neighbor was leaving on vacation so she accepted her husband's offer for him to stay around to look after her.

Augusta, it seems, couldn't get along with her husband James, either, the couple having been separated four years. He was "addicted at times to the inordinate use of liquor," according to the PD, "but otherwise was an industrious, well-meaning man." He kept in touch with youngest son Adam and slipped him pocket change.

The 61 year-old James promptly began showing the same symptoms as his wife. A friend of his visiting from Merced nursed the pair of them and after a couple of days he was sick as well. Amazingly, the local doctor did not suspect something might be amiss with the situation.

James was taken to a neighboring house as the man from Merced left for home. It was a Saturday evening when the Windsor doctor finally asked a colleague for a consultation on Augusta's case. She was rushed by auto to the hospital in Santa Rosa where she died even before she could provide a history of her illness. The cause of death was pneumonia, after having been continuously sick for almost two weeks. Although two other people were showing the same symptoms, apparently no one still suspected foul play.

The funeral was two days later. As mourners gathered at the family home, Adam reportedly told someone the strangest thing: "I would not touch that coffee or sugar, as there is poison in it." Word of that reached Santa Rosa and the next day the sheriff and District Attorney visited the Clark ranch house and took samples to analyze. The arsenic was found and Adam was arrested. He quickly confessed, apparently after being told that his dad had been poisoned as well and would likely die. James Clark indeed died the following day, with the friend from Merced eventually recovering fully.

Adam's warning about the poisoned sugar and coffee was tantamount to a confession of course, and lends much to the view his brains were seriously scrambled. He also told police he had used the poison on rats and found it failed to kill them immediately. That issue was another difference between the papers that portrayed him as either cunning or clueless – perhaps he planned the delay would provide him an alibi of not being around when his mom died, or perhaps he believed it demonstrated the poison was barely deadly to rats and thus probably wouldn't be seriously harmful to humans.

The delinquency hearing – Press Democrat coverage transcribed and partly summarized below – did little to clarify Adam's intentions. He told Judge Seawell that he had not intended to kill his mother, yet thought he was justified in poisoning her. It also came out in court that she had Toxophobia (the fear of being poisoned) which adds another note of horror to the tale.

It took a few weeks for authorities to decide what to do with him. "Are you going to hang me?" the PD reported he asked a member of the probation committee, "his face like marble and his frame all of a tremble." Those were the last words of his recorded in any newspapers.

 Clark was sentenced to six years to Preston School of Industry at Ione, which was a prison-like reformatory with armed guards. On release after he turned 21, he was to be on a thirty year probation, subject to be re-sentenced as an adult for the confessed murder of his mother – a judgement that was extreme and appears unprecedented.

 After he was released in 1918 he lived with one of his older brothers in Montana, then returned to Sonoma County where he worked as a teamster in Petaluma. Given the heavy newspaper coverage of his crimes eight years earlier, it's hard to imagine there wasn't finger-pointing and whispering. Adam H. Clark died at age 24 in Los Angeles in 1922.  

GOOD WOMAN PASSES TO HER REWARD

The death occurred on Sunday of Mrs. Augusta Clark, a well known and highly respected resident of Windsor. Her passing is deeply regretted by the members of her family and a large circle of friends.

The deceased lady was forty-five years of age [JE NOTE: she was 54], and was a native of Norway. She came to this state when a baby.

The deceased was the sister of Mrs. Latimer, wife of Justice of the Peace Hugh N. N. Latimer of Windsor, and the mother of Ben, Ernest, Adam and Ethel Clark.

- Press Democrat, August 13, 1912

ADAM CLARK TELLS STORY OF THE DUAL POISONING

Never Had Chance In Environment of Home Life

Stillness as of the tomb pervaded Judge Seawell's department of the Superior Court on Wednesday afternoon. Judge, court officials and spectators bent forward eagerly. An unusual story was being told. It came from the lips of a fifteen-year-old boy, fifteen as years are counted, but possibly about seven or eight when reckoned by the degree of mentality he possesses.

It was Adam Clark's narrative of the poisoning of his father and mother at Windsor that aroused everybody in that quiet courtroom. The confession had been told previously by him into the ears of officials of the court. This was the first time he had told it in public.

The story came from him in fits and starts. It was not a connected recital, except when it was linked by questions put by the Court. The boy said that his mother was always nagging him, as he put it, "giving him the dickens." A short time prior to his awful deed he said she objected to his going to work on a hay press, and had threatened him repeatedly that she would send him to the reform school. Then he made up his mind that he would put up with it no longer, and when on one Sunday he visited his mother's house and found no one at home he placed a handful of poison he had bought some time previously to kill rats that had molested his rabbits in the coffee canister. He killed his mother, willfully, as viewed by the eyes of the law. He killed his father, too, but he maintains that he did not mean to do so. The other details have already been published in these columns.

Adam Clark told Judge Seawell that he had never known a mother's love. He started and looked inquiringly at the Court when he was told something about a mother's love. He did not know what was meant. There was no mistaking from his words and demeanor that he felt his mother had not used him right, and that she had nagged him, as he expressed it. He said he liked his father better than his mother. He said, too, that he realized that he had done very wrong, but as far as taking the life of his mother was concerned he did not express the same degree of concern as he did at the killing of his father. The boy told Judge Seawell that he had not intended to kill even his mother.

Judge Seawell reminded him that the fact that his mother might have been overbearing in her treatment of him, he (the boy) could not tell what had prompted that action on his mother's part. She might have thought sending him to the reform school was for his good. Anyway, the Court impressed upon the lad at his side, that it did not minimize his terrible deed. He told the boy that more than likely if it were possible for his mother to come back to life she would be in the courtroom pleading with him (the Court) to forgive his act.

When Adam Clark left the witness stand he also left an impression with all who listened to his story that he does not realize the enormity of his offense and that in his limited mentality, still thinks that he was justified in the taking of his mother's life.

"Boy Without a Chance"

Adam Clark is a boy who apparently never had a chance. His home life, according to the testimony any number of witnesses, was not conducive to point to the better things of life and did not embody in its rule principles of right living. It was a house divided against itself, and it fell and the climax of that fall was the toll of two human lives. Witnesses testified that Mrs. Clark was unfortunately the victim at times of an ungovernable temper, and that her language in the presence of her children was not what it should have been. It was also stated that she was as the boy claimed, constantly finding fault with or nagging him. Then it was shown that the father was addicted at times to the inordinate use of liquor but otherwise was an industrious, well-meaning man, although it is said, he lacked some of the requirements that should be embodied in the good father.

At the outset of the proceedings on Wednesday morning Judge Seawell stated that the inquiry was not in the nature of a court of law. It was an investigation as provided for under the Delinquency act. He also asked all the witnesses to speak out frankly and tell freely what they knew concerning the habits of Adam Clark, his life, and environment, as well as the family history as far as they knew. At the outset Justice of the Peace Hugh N. N. Latimer of Windsor was asked by Judge Seawell to represent the relatives of the deceased and the boy and interrogate any of the witnesses that might be called on any matters he desired. District Attorney Clarence F. Lea examined the witnesses.

Adam Barth testified that he had known the boy since birth and had been acquainted with his mother and father. He said he regarded the boy as one whose environments had not been good. He said if they had been better he believed that the influence would have been felt by the boy. He spoke of his acquaintance with the Clark family, and said at times he had not thought the boy was very bight. Mr. Barth testified further that he had heard Mrs. Clark use language that was not calculated to command respect.

Afraid of Being Poisoned

Dr. J. W. Seamell testified that he knew both Mr. and Mrs. Clark, and the boy. In his opinion Adam was born under a stigma of degeneracy when the proclivities of the parents were considered. He said he considered Mrs. Clark paranoic [sic]. She was constantly afraid of being poisoned, and stated so frequently.

Justice H. N. N. Latimer testified that he had known the Clark family for many years. He said he was aware that Mrs. Clark was continually nagging Adam, and she thought more of the other children than she did of him. She had some sort of a feeling that no matter what Adam did it was wrong, and she told him so, the witness stated. He said the boy was of a listless disposition, did not want to go to school, wanted to be out in the open in freedom. Mr. Clark, he said, was good to the children; he said, was an industrious woman. She was a woman of a high temper and very unreasonable in her demands at times, it seemed to him, the Judge said. He added that he was always of the opinion that if the boy had been used to the right kind of influences he would have been a better youth.

...[seven witnesses, including the boy's brother and teacher, testified he was friendly and showed no signs signs of cruelty but he skipped school and sometimes stole small things.]...

W. H. Hickman, owner of the hay baling outfit with which Adam Clark had worked, testified. Mrs. Clark had told him she did not want Adam to work on the baler, and he had told the boy so. He also had heard Mrs. Clark threaten that she would send Adam to a reform school. She was very angry.

Under Sheriff Walter C. Lindsay corroborated the testimony of other witnesses regarding the unhappiness in the Clark family, Mrs. Clark's disposition, and as to other matters.

Joseph C. Pohley testified that Mr. Clark worked for him some time prior to his death. He knew the family intimately. He also agreed that Mrs. Clark was very unreasonable at times and did not speak well of people. It was Mr. Pohley who was told by Clark that he was taken ill each time he drank the coffee, which later turned out to have been poisoned by his son....

...Miss Ethel Clark, sister of the lad under investigation, was the next witness. When she learned of her mother's illness, she went up to Windsor from Santa Rosa where she had been residing for some time and assisted in nursing her mother. The day after her mother's death, or the day for the funeral, her brother called her attention to the coffee in the canister and said it "looked funny." It had the appearance of being moldy, she said. No more coffee was used out of the can. At the time her father was also sick. After the funeral of her mother, Mrs. W. C. Chisholm kindly invited the girl to her home, and she went there. Miss Clark also detailed something of the unhappiness of the family life, particularly as regards Adam and his mother.

[..]

- Press Democrat, August 29, 1912

WAS IT MURDER? MAN JAILED ON SUSPICION IN PETALUMA

As a result of the investigation conducted by Assistant District Attorney George W. Hoyle Thursday into the tragic death on Wednesday of John C. Albertoni, a well known Two Rock Valley farmer, Rocco Zanetti, an employee on the Albertoni ranch, was arrested Thursday afternoon and detained in jail in Petaluma over night...

...John C. Albertoni, a well known young rancher, whose home is on the Freeman estate, four miles west of this city, where he leased a tract of 240 acres, and was engaged in dairy and poultry raising, was found dead in the kitchen of his home at 3:30 on Wednesday afternoon, and while it is presumably a case of suicide, the coroner is not satisfied, and on Thursday morning notified the county officials. Deputy Sheriff Don McIntosh, Assistant District Attorney George W. Hoyle and Court Stenographer Harry Scott arrived here on the morning train and with Coroner Frank L. Blackburn are busy investigating. They left in an auto for the scene on Thursday, and prior to departure spent several hours here. None of the officers will speak for publication, but it is learned that the nature of the wound and the implement which was used, to wit, a double barrel shotgun, has raised a doubt in the mind of the officers, whether or not the wound could have been self-inflicted. The body is at the Blackburn parlors and it is understood that a post mortem examination is being held. The inquest will probably be held this evening of Friday morning at the parlors. There are several strange phases to the case.

The man, who lives at the Freeman place with one hired man, named Rocca Zanetti [sic], purchased a new shotgun in this city a week ago. On Wednesday afternoon he went into the yard and shot a rooster with it, re-entered the kitchen. A short time later another shot was heard, and when the hired man entered the room he found Albertoni dead on the floor. The bird he had killed was on the table and Albertoni lay on the floor, with the gun between his legs. He was shot in the body at close range; the body being badly torn and a portion of the heart being shot away. The man has unusually short arms, and it is said he could not have reached the trigger. He had his boots on and could not have the shot with his toes. There was no stick, no string and nothing with which he could have discharged the gun, near the body when found. It may have been possible that the bird which he had shot might have discharged the trigger in its last convulsions, but this idea is scouted. The gun contained an empty barrel and one empty shell. It was a new weapon and in perfect condition.

- Press Democrat, January 26, 1912

CONFESSES THAT HE KILLED MAN

Rocco Zanetti Admits Shooting, But Claims That it Was an Accident Done in Playful Mood

Rocco Zanetti was brought to the county jail in this city yesterday afternoon and is detained there pending the placing of a formal charge of murder against him. At the inquest held in Petaluma yesterday morning on the remains of J. C. Albertoni, a Two Rock farmer after much endeavor to avoid the finger of suspicion already resting upon him being made to press all the heavier, Assistant District Attorney George W. Hoyle, who had investigated the death of Albertoni on the previous day, and had satisfied himself that Zanetti had fired the fatal shot, wrung from him a confession of the deed. Zanetti stoutly maintaining, however, that the shooting had been accidental, and done in a playful mood.

Prosecutor Hoyle, in the light of the investigation he had made, and the knowledge gained that the men had quarreled during the time Zanetti had been employed on the Albertoni ranch, is not prepared to accept the claim on the part of the accused that the shooting was accidental, and he will delve thoroughly into the case.

The shooting occurred on the Albertoni ranch on Wednesday afternoon and Rocco claimed to have discovered his employer in a dying condition in a room in the ranch house. He went so far at first to say that when he came in and raised Albertoni's head that the latter had remarked to him, "I'm dying." Under the fire of examination at the inquest held by Coroner Frank Blackburn yesterday morning Rocco admitted that he had accidentally shot Albertoni with the gun which, he says, his employer had stated was unloaded. He picked up the weapon, he said, after this assurance and pulled the trigger and shot Albertoni. This information he vouchsafed, it is said, after he had listened to the evidence from the undertaker and physician, which put his previous statements at variance and showed that it was hardly likely that the man could possibly have shot himself.

The Coroner's jury found that Albertoni met his death as the result of a gunshot wound inflicted by Rocco Zanetti, whether accidentally or maliciously the jury did not know.

Assistant District Attorney Hoyle further questioned Zanetti after he was brought to this city yesterday afternoon. The man maintained, however, that there was no maliciousness in his act, and that it had been entirely accidental and inflicted as he had deposed.

- Press Democrat, January 27, 1912

Explain this puzzler: Why didn't Santa Rosa police in 1912 seem concerned about finding the boys who incited a riot? And here's another mystery which may (or may not) be related: What happened to our run-of-the-mill hooligans?

Just five years earlier there were regularly stories in the the Santa Rosa papers about hometown hoodlums. Kids as young as 10 were described as "incorrigibles" for their involvement with crimes petty and large: Arson, "immorality," chicken snatching and armed buggy hijacking. The following year of 1908 boys were mentioned in the papers for stealing horses, burglaries, and trying to derail a train. But after that the kiddie crime wave seems to have subsided. What changed?

One factor was probably the new state laws passed in 1909 that modernized the juvenile justice system. Previously children who committed crimes were treated like minature adults, subject to trial by jury. Sentencing was geared for punishment rather than rehabilitation, with the courts able to send boys as young as 14 to state prison. Judges could be arbitrary and capricious; as an example, consider what happened to that pair of young boys who threw rocks through train windows and placed objects on the railroad tracks. The boy who was ten years old was sent home after promising to be good but his companion, just a year older, was packed off to the Preston School of Industry at Ione (AKA San Quentin for Kids). Under the new laws anyone under 21 would be allowed to stay at home under probation. If their family was too dysfunctional or didn't want the child, the next step was now to send the child somewhere like "The Boys' and Girls' Aid Society" in San Francisco, intended for boys "not sufficiently wayward to require assignment to the reform school, and too hard to manage to be placed in family homes or orphanage." (Longtime readers recognize "the Aid" as the institution supplying most of the child labor used in the Sebastopol child labor camps.)

But the better laws don't explain the dropoff in local juvenile crimes. Did they continue but the newspapers held back from reporting about them out of a newfound compassion that the articles could damage reputations for life? (Not to mention the embarrassment their descendants may experience a century later after some jerk digs up those old news stories and reposts them to a global communication network.) As smart-alecky scientists love to say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Perhaps there was an agreement between the Press Democrat and Santa Rosa Republican to engage in some discreet self-censorship; the coverage of Adam Clark, the troubled boy who killed his parents was gentle, almost sympathetic. Other evidence points both ways; one of the items transcribed below withholds the name of a 17 year-old burglar, yet another item published in the same paper about the same time named an even younger boy who committed a similar robbery, and on the front page no less (this boy, however, was not a local).

An easier explanation for the lack of juvenile crime news is that there really was less to report. Santa Rosa and Sonoma county was not the same place in 1912 that it was just a few stressful years earlier. The economic pendulum had swung from the scary months after the 1906 earthquake and the 1907 bank panic to a time of prosperity. A clue that the overall mood had improved was far fewer suicides, unlike the dismal month of March, 1905 when Coroner Frank Blackburn held a suicide inquest nearly every week. And another sign people were happier overall: The Press Democrat, previously a font of invective against Republicans and reformers and anyone else who didn't kowtow to the Chamber of Commerce, passed through the major election year of 1912 without slinging mud at anyone. Well, hardly anyone.

Not to say that our kids were suddenly little angels; there was, for example, the matter of that riot.

The new Rose theater was apparently nearly full that Friday summer night when the building began shaking and creaking – apparently two or more youths were jumping up and down on the roof (the building was a converted storefront, not the sort of heavy construction movie theater as we have today). Some thought it was another earthquake. "I thought I heard a cry of 'Fire,'" someone told the Press Democrat. "Many people left their seats and made a break for the front and back exits, and three women fainted," the PD reported. "Two of them were assisted out in front and another was carried out by the stage entrance. Many people were frightened, and altogether it was very lucky that no one was hurt."

You will never read about another event so literally close to someone "shouting fire in a crowded theater," and today the response would be outrage and demand for the perps to be held to account. But in 1912 the response was...meh. The cops looked around a bit but gave up when no suspects fell into their arms. No furious op/ed followed in the papers.

There was even a surprising tolerance for boys carrying weapons. The Press Democrat editorialized against the "slingshot nuisance" in 1911 and mentioned several people had been injured, but a year later kids were still packing and had added air guns to their arsenals. A 1912 PD article warned it was against the law to use them but except for a couple of boys having their slingshots confiscated, nothing more was said. Boys will be boys and try not to put someone's eye out. Good times.

 BOYS PUT AWAY YOUR AIR GUNS

 Police Given Instructions to Confiscate Air Guns and Sling Shots and to Make Arrests

 The police have given repeated warnings to boys and youths against the use of air guns and sling shots, and Thursday Officer Andrew Miller took a gun and a sling shot away from two youngsters and gave dire warning that hereafter all boys caught with them will be arrfested. It is against the law to use them, and also to shoot the birds which the boys are ruthlessly slaughtering. It behooves parents to see that their sons are not armed with these weapons, if they do not want to pay fines as the police are determined to stop the use of them before some one is dangerously injured.

 This notion of the part of the police department is the result of numerous complaints from people in this city who seek both to stop the killing of the songsters and the danger that result in people being hurt.

  - Press Democrat, February 2, 1912

 NOISE ON THE ROOF OF ROSE THEATRE CAUSES A PANIC

 Presence of Mind Prevents Serious Catastrophe

 What C. N. Carrington characterizes as a deliberate attempt to break up the business in vaudeville and moving picture entertainments he and his son are building up at the Rose theatre in this city last night caused a small panic at the playhouse and but for the presence of mind of a number of men and women, the immediate breaking forth into music of the orchestra at the call of the leader, Mrs. Joe P. Berry and other diversions, the result might have been very serious. As it was many people left their seats and made a break for the front and back exits, and three women fainted. Two of them were assisted out in front and another was carried out by the stage entrance. Many people were frightened, and altogether it was very lucky that no one was hurt.

 Whether it was as Carrington declares "a deliberate attempt to break up his business or not, or whether boys or men were on the roof and jumped about on it, or possibly shied a brick across just for a lark, unmindful that such horse play might cause death and injury in a panic in the theatre below or not, the excitement was occasioned by a noise on the roof."

 According to Manager Carrington noises on the roof of the theatre--it is a flat roof and comparatively easy to climb--have been frequent on two or three previous nights. As late as Thursday night some one poked a piece of brick through an opening in the ventilator over the moving picture machine and hit Nick Quintero, the operator, on the head. This lends color to the suggestion that it might have been a prank.

 Many people in the center of the theatre apparently did not know what had happened when others at both ends of the building jumped to their feet and made some confusion.

 "I thought it was a fight," said one man to a Press Democrat interviewer.

 "I thought possibly from the creaking of the roof that it was a shake," said another.

 "I thought I heard a cry of 'Fire,'" said another.

 "One woman jumped over me in an endeavor to get out and pulled my coat over my head," was another man's version.

 "I did not hear any shout at all, but could not understand what had happened," said another.

 "I knew something had happened," said another.

 "Some people were scared, but I wasn't," declared another in a spirit of bravado.

 "I shouted to people to sit down," was the heroic declaration of another.

  In every big audience there are a number of timid people.

  Two men were seen on the roof, according to the statements of several people. One of them, in his shirt sleeves, ran to the Fourth street front and looked out over the sidewalk as if to see how many people ran out of the building.

  Whatever it was there was a noise on the roof, enough to startle people. Manager Carrington says that one man started to run from his seat some distance from the door, and that he called "fire" as he ran. Whoever this was, Manager Carrington says, he made his getaway up the street as fast as possible.

  Mr. Carrington wishes the Press Democrat to assure all patrons that from now on an officer will be on guard and that there shall be no further disturbance of performances. He naturally very much regrets the fright given people last night.

  Chief of Police Boyes and members of the police department were quickly on the scene and searched the roofs of the theatre and adjoining buildings. Undersheriff Walter Lindsay was in the audience. He says, "I thought at first that the stage end wall was falling out." Therefore it must have been some noise.

  After the excitement the people went back to their seats and the show proceeded.

  - Press Democrat, June 22, 1912

  YOUTH ARRESTED FOR BURGLARY

  School Boy is Taken up for Entering Stores

  Recently the stores of Jenkins Bros. and Roof Bros. have been entered and merchandise and money taken. Cigarettes and chewing gum seemed to be the mania of the robber. From the Roof store less than five dollars in money was taken, while from Jenkins Brothers store but little cash was found. The boy took the cigarettes to school and gave them around, saying that a drummer had given them to his father. He hid them in the back of various stores on Fifth street and when it began to rain moved them to different places. For a week or more the officers have been watching for him and on Sunday morning he was taken into custody and charged with burglary.

  The boy comes of good family and his parents are among Santa Rosa's most respected citizens. He is but 17 years of age.

 - Santa Rosa Republican, October 28, 1912

It was like part of a riddle: What's an orphanage with few orphans, a detention home that has no guards or locked doors? Answer: The Salvation Army Orphanage at Lytton Springs.

In the early 20th century it was formally called the "Boys' and Girls' Industrial Home and Farm," or just the "Industrial Farm" by those who ran it. The Salvation Army still quietly uses it as an adult rehab center, but a century ago the facility about three miles north of Healdsburg was well known, highlighted in newspaper Sunday features and something of a tourist attraction.

(RIGHT: Children at the Lytton Industrial Home and Farm, 1910. Photo courtesy Sonoma County Library)

The Lytton farm in that era was just one of many outposts in the state's vast child welfare/child labor system. California had more kids per capita in institutions than anywhere else in the United States; in the early 1910s it was estimated more than one child out of 50 was in some sort of institution each year.¹

Those staggering numbers reflect the complicated attitudes towards children a century ago. Although Lytton was also known as the "Golden Gate Orphanage," only eight percent of the kids were truly orphans; "Mother Bourne," the driving force at Lytton and wife of the superintendent said most children were there because of unfit parents, particularly drunkenness and "looseness of the marriage tie" (another writer listed "modified hoboism or Bohemianism" as a factor). Altogether, two out of three were there for such reasons or because they were deemed to be "unmanageable." The good news was that very often their stay at Lytton was temporary, with a child returning to his/her family once the situation stabilized.

But "mild delinquents" were also sentenced to Lytton by the courts, and one who made news locally in 1912 was Jimmy Gillespie. The 11 year-old ran away immediately and made his way to Santa Rosa, where he burgled two houses and stole a bike. After being captured by a deputy he escaped before he could be sent back to Lytton, this time stealing $4.60 from the purse of a woman on Orchard street. Superintendent Bourne came to town to pick up the boy after he was caught, promising he would be closely watched, according to the Republican paper. But a week later Jimmy ran away once more, this time breaking into a general store in Geyserville and making off with valuables, including "some marbles." This time he was nabbed after robbing a railroad station of tickets he planned to use to flee to San Francisco. The paper reported he was "rated as an incorrigible by the Sonoma County officials" with "a record of petty offenses that is appalling." One of the headlines in the Republican went so far as to call his mini-crime spree "evil acts."

Jimmy's next stop was probably one of the seven reformatories where he would be locked up until adulthood. Three of those were run by the state but Lytton and the 78 other institutions like it in California were privately owned, and nearly all were operated by a religious organization.²

Conditions at the Lytton farm were among the very best of the institutions; at the other end of the scale were operations that crammed up to fifty kids in a cottage. There were no state standards for living conditions, nutrition, medical care or basic record-keeping on the kids, aside from a statistical report to the State Board of Charities. Nonetheless there was public money available from the state and counties to take care of the children, and that contributed more than half of operating costs in some cases. Lytton was in the middle, with about 30% of its funding coming from taxpayers.

Then there was the tradeoff between education and work. With an average of about 230 children, Lytton was large enough to have its own county grammar school staffed by public schoolteachers. But that was as far as education went in that era; older kids were allowed to attend Healdsburg high school only if the "boy or girl has capacity for high school training and wants it," according to a 1909 feature article in the San Francisco Call, a year when there were only three high school students from there.

This may be the cruelest aspect of the "orphanage" system: Even if your parents' divorce leads to you being sent to one of the nicer places such as Lytton, it ends up costing you an education beyond readin', writin' and 'rithmetic. While Santa Rosa High School was then offering typewriting classes and teaching other office skills which were in growing demand, Lytton was preparing kids for a 19th century future.

Lytton was very much a working farm, with a particularly successful poultry and egg business. Kids had plenty of milk thanks to their own dairy but the place wasn't entirely self-supporting; there wasn't enough water available for irrigation, so they had to buy vegetables and fruit. Choice eggs were sold to the St. Francis hotel in San Francisco, which in turn donated its chipped dishware to the orphanage.

(RIGHT: Children clearing rocks in a field at the Lytton Industrial Home and Farm, 1909. Photo courtesy Sonoma County Library)

Yet there's no getting around that Lytton was a commercial farm being subsidized by public monies and nearly free child labor. (The Salvation Army did pay them something for farm work, but no articles could be found describing how much.) Functionally it was not much different from the Sebastopol child labor camps, where many Bay Area institutions sent youngsters to work during summers – often from dawn to dusk during harvest season – and a 1917 study found that work could only be justified as a reason for kids to be outdoors.

For young people inclined towards egg sorting and milking, Lytton was a sanctuary, and some received permission to stay on past the age where the institution received charitable subsidy for them. And while the Salvation Army's main objective was always trying to get each kid into a normal home as soon as possible, state law partially blocked such efforts because Lytton was not a licensed child-placement agency. (The need for adoption regulation seems obvious but before the law changed in 1911, the Salvation Army in Santa Rosa gave away a 7-month-old baby at one of its services.) In 1912 only eleven of those agencies existed in the state; closest to Lytton was Santa Rosa's branch of the Native Sons' and Native Daughters' Central Committee.³

It's a bit surprising to learn the Native Sons of the Golden West and Native Daughters auxiliary ran an adoption agency; the organization is best known today for erecting historical monuments and such. (Their Santa Rosa lodge still exists on Mendocino Ave. near Fifth St.) But in 1912 they ran a notice in the Santa Rosa Republican listing all the adorable "tots who are free for adoption," ages from less than a month to thirteen years. Many were probably Lytton kids except the youngest; Lytton was not setup to handle infants, and only accepted children under three when there were other boys or girls from the family.

Children were listed by religion with the notice, "Protestant children must be placed in Protestant homes and Catholic children in Catholic homes." Categories also specified race/ethnicity: Chinese, "Colored," Jewish or "Spanish." From the descriptions apparently the children could be attractive or smart, but not both. There was a girl that was so pretty it had to be mentioned twice: "Beautiful girl, 11 months old, part Spanish, very beautiful." One also has to feel sorry for the 3½ year old girl someone felt compelled to describe as "not pretty but bright."





¹ 1910 California census: 621,666 under 20, with over 14,000 different children in care each year
² Child Welfare Work in California: A Study of Agencies and Institutions; 1915
³ ibid

 DOES ANY ONE WANT A CHILD?

 Native Sons Seek Homes for Orphan Babies

 Santa Rosa Parlor, Native Sons of the Golden West, met at Native Sons hall on Thursday evening...The Native Sons' and Native Daughters' Central Committee on Homeless children have a large list of little tots who are free for adoption and whom it is wished to secure homes for. C. A. Pool, Jackson Temple and J. M. Boyes compose the committee of the local lodge that has charge of finding homes for the children. The following list includes some of the most attractive children from which proper people can secure a lovable baby by applying to the local committee.

 Protestant children must be placed in Protestant homes and Catholic children in Catholic homes.

 Protestant Girls

 Brown eyes, 3½ years old, not pretty but bright.
 Black eyes, 7 years old, very attractive.
 Pretty girl, brown eyes, light hair, 5½ years old.
 Attractive girl, 9 years old, brown hair.

 Jewish Children

 Lovely little girl, 2 years old, dark eyes, brown hair.
 Handsome boy, blonde, 2 years old.

 Catholic girls

 Two baby girls, 1 year old.
 Beautiful girl, 11 months old, part Spanish, very beautiful.
 Two pretty babies, 2 years old, have been delicate, need good homes.
 Pretty baby 6 months old.
 Very attractive baby, 3 months old, blue eyes, brown hair.
 Attractive girl, 10 years old.
 Italian girl, 13 years old.
 Nice girl, 7 years old.

 Chinese

 Very attractive and pretty little girl 2 years old.

 Twins

 Lovely girls 2½ years old, brown eyes and grey eyes, curls.

 Protestant Boys

 Several lovely baby boys under one month.
 Handsome boy, 2 years old, light curls, gray eyes.
 Fine boy, 9 months old, brown eyes, light hair.
 Bright lad, 3 years old, blue eyes, brown hair.
 Three boys, about nine years; want home in country.
 Handsome Spanish boy, 2½ years old.

 Catholic Boys

 Six fine boys about 3 years old.
 Nice boy, 5 years old.
 Beautiful boy, 2½ years old, blonde.
 Two fine babies, 1 year old, a very high type, brown eyes.
 Two nice boys, 5 years old.
 Handsome Spanish boy, 7 years old.

 Colored Children

 Handsome, bright little girl, 3½ years old.
 Fine boy, 7 months.

 - Santa Rosa Republican, August 16, 1912

 BOY CONTINUES HIS EVIL ACTS

 Jimmie Gillipsi Escaped From Detention Home

  Jimmie Gillipsi, the 11 year old boy who was arrested here Friday by Deputy Sheriff C. A. Reynolds and turned over to Probation Officer John Plover, continued his evil ways later that evening. It will be remembered that the lad entered two houses and stole a wheel before being caught here. After his arrest Probation Officer Plover found that the boy had been sent to the Lytton orphanage from Alameda the evening before he ran away and was arrested here.

He was taken to the detention home Friday night, to be cared for before being sent back to the orphanage. While a room was being prepared for him at the detention home and while he was left in the sitting room by himself, Jimmy escaped.  When the matron, Mrs. Parish, returned she discovered the boy had gone and the police and probation officer started out to search for him. He was discovered about 2 o'clock in the Northwestern Pacific depot.

Evidently the first course de determined upon after his escape from the detention home was to resume robbery attempts, for he went into the home of Mrs. Wells on Orchard street and took a purse from the lady's handbag. The purse contained $4.60. The boy came down town and purchased another purse, throwing the one away he had stolen, so that the money could not be identified. When arrested he had spent 80 cents of the stolen coin. This he had used in getting the new purse, ham and eggs for supper and an ice cream soda. Saturday Major Bourne took the boy back to the orphanage, where he will be closely watched and cared for.

 - Santa Rosa Republican, September 28, 1912

  SMALL BOY IN TROUBLE

  Incorrigible Lad Has Record of Many Thefts

  Jimmie Gillespie, who is rated as an incorrigible by the Sonoma County officials, was captured neatly by Conductor Ab Shera on Tuesday morning and turned over to Officer Andy Miller at the local station when the train from the north arrived here.

  During Monday night at the depot of the railroad company at Lytton was robbed and some tickets taken. Conductor Shera was notified of the robbery by the agent at Lytton Tuesday morning and was on the lookout for the pasteboards. Gillespie boarded the train at Healdsburg and passed one of the stolen tickets up for transportation to San Francisco. He had realized that the tickets must be stamped to be good, and had placed a stamp on them, using the postoffice stamp for that purpose.

  What will be done with the boy is a matter of conjecture. He has been in trouble before and it looks like he will get a pass from the county to the Ione reform school. The lad is only 11 years of age, but has a record of petty offenses that is appalling. He was taken into custody and placed in the Detention Home here and broke away from that institution, and robbed the Wells residence. He secured $4.60 and some articles of value. He was placed in the Lytton orphanage, from which institution he broke out Sunday night and went to Geyserville. There he robbed the rochdale store of a couple of knives, a watch and some marbles, a stick pin, some other jewelry and some change. Returning to Lyttons he robbed the depot, which led to his capture.

 - Santa Rosa Republican, October 8, 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 LAW

Traffic Ordinance Regulations Regarding Cutting of Corners, Etc., Will Be Strictly Enforced Now

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

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

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

- Press Democrat, February 11, 1913

WARNING GIVEN AUTO DRIVERS

Must Carry Tail Lights as Required by Law or Arrests are Likely to Follow

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

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

- Press Democrat, January 28, 1912

AUTOS AND MOTOR CYCLES MUST ALL BE MUFFLED

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

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

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

- Press Democrat, May 22, 1912

CITY FATHERS TRANSACT BIG VOLUME OF BUSINESS

[..]

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

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

- Press Democrat, June 5, 1912

TRAFFIC SQUAD BUSY SATURDAY

Many People Express Indignation Over Law

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

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

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

- Santa Rosa Republican, June 15, 1912

MERCHANTS DISCUSS THE NEW TRAFFIC ORDINANCE

Many Present at the Meeting Held Last Night

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

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

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

Among those who spoke on the subject were...

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

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

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

Not Criticizing Council

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

[..]

- Press Democrat, June 26, 1912

 TRAFFIC ORDINANCE IS AMENDED FRIDAY EVENING

 Persons May Turn Any Place Desired From Present Time

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

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

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

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

 - Santa Rosa Republican, August 17, 1912

Once I heard a renowned journalist asked about his worst assignment as a newspaper cub reporter. "Dog shows," he answered without hesitation. "People get miffed if their own personal details are slightly wrong in a story, but misspell the name of their prize-winning dog or make a mistake about its precise breed and the owner will call your editor, publisher, and chairman of the board demanding a front page correction and your head on a plate."

Yikes! If dog show assignments were that dreaded in the 1950s and 1960s, one can only imagine how nervous reporters must have been a half century earlier when the events were a really big deal, with newspapers devoting several pages to list the complete judging results. Photos of selected dogs and their owners often accompanied the coverage, which typically appeared in the sports section - unless the show was sponsored by a "ladies" kennel club, in which case it was shunted off to the society pages.

The first contest in America to judge dogs supposedly happened in 1876, but I'll bet it probably occurred about five minutes after the guy with the second dog stepped off a ship from England and encountered the guy with the first dog. Dog shows also appear to function as a kind of cultural barometer; lots of shows in good times, not so many when times are lean. The years following the Great Earthquake and the 1907 Bank Panic were not happy ones in the Bay Area, and there were only three shows each in 1907-1908, one of which was a combined dog and poultry affair. But the boom year of 1912 witnessed seven around the Bay Area, including one in Santa Rosa. (There was also a single Bay Area cat show that year, but it turned into a "free for all," according to the San Francisco Call, after cat owners took umbrage at the judging.)

(RIGHT: Undated photo of unknown child in dog costume. Via doggypostcardsandephemera.tumblr.com)

That 1912 dog show generated considerable excitement in Santa Rosa; despite the town being filled with visitors, most downtown stores closed early that Saturday night so store clerks could attend the show. Less clear today is what kind of impression the show left upon them because our attitudes towards our pets have changed so much. Dog show attendees back then might have been shocked at the idea of our modern pampered pooches living indoors as members of the family, and considering neither kibble nor canned dog food existed yet, they would have been gobsmacked to learn that feeding our doggies is now a multi-billion dollar industry.

Not to say our ancestors did not have great affection for dogs; when Santa Rosa's fire department dog, "Buster," was hit by a car he merited an obituary in the Press Democrat. "He was run over and killed by a careless auto driver who had the entire street, and yet would not get by without killing Buster," lamented the PD, noting the pup was "a favorite with all who have occasion to visit the house or pass it regularly." Years earlier in the coverage of the heated 1905 Battle of Sebastopol Avenue the only true "human interest" story described "Bum," a dog that became the mascot of the Petaluma & Santa Rosa Railway, catching rides back and forth as workers competed for his/her attention. And one of the most popular stories ever to appear here involved the 1905-1908 court battle between two men over ownership of "Queen, a valuable varmint dog" - even though the dog had actually died in 1906.

The dark side of the dog show event is whether the economic boost it brought to Santa Rosa caused its newspaper editors to censor themselves. A few weeks before the 1912 show, the San Francisco papers reported Mrs. Maude Duffy, a 24 year-old mother of two, had died of rabies (it was called "the violent disease" in that day) which she contracted from a Santa Rosa dog. Although this was exactly the sort of horrible and tragic death the Press Democrat loved to feature, not a word about her fate appeared in either paper. On the day of her funeral, the Santa Rosa Republican even offered a little editorial about the cruelty of docking a dog's tail, comparing it to cutting out someone's tongue so they could not speak.

When the show was over the PD ran an article where the judges and dog owners praised Santa Rosa for its swell show, accompanied by a three page list of ribbon winners. Among them were "Aviator Wonder" and "Dictagraph C" (bull terriers), "Wally von Bluetenwinkle" (dachshund), "Pom Patch Psyche" and "Fluffy Ruffles III," which took the prize as the best toy dog. Champions all.

ALL DOGDOM IS A'FLUTTER

Bluest Blooded "Toy Dogs" of State Here Saturday

Unless you chance to be a 1913 model of the toy dog fancier, whose fetich [sic] in dogology is real blue blood of the bluest color, you are quite naturally oblivious to the fact that Santa Rosa is at the very crater's edge of a social function in dog land that is setting the aristocrats of the dogdom of the state into a frenzy of expectant excitement.

You have lazily read, or perhaps heard of the fact that the Kennel Club of this city is arranging its first annual dog show. Perhaps you have yawned your indifference, but the fact may not so much as have percolated your cuticle that the same dog show, with its very first bow to the public, is going to prove one of the most aristocratic events in highly bred dog society ever attempted in any city of the state, aside from the home of dog shows, the City of San Francisco itself.

Because of your possibly near confession of indifference, this is  solemn warning for you to wake up and rub your eyes and then bestir yourself, for Saturday, next Saturday, and all day and evening Saturday, this city is to be the guest of scores of the most famous prize winning, heart capturing dogs of every class, color, size and breed you have ever seen assembled.

World's champions, national champions, state champions and several score of aspirants for championship honors to come are to be here. To be exact, there was the glittering total of one hundred and sixty dogs entered last night. And there may be more to come.

And with these dogs, one hundred and thirty of which come from the most famous breeding kennels of the state outside of Sonoma county, will come many of the elect in society from exclusive Burlingame, San Mateo and Piedmont to battle for supremacy with the owners of dog kennels in this portion of the state. Great Danes and Bernards and Newfoundlands will yelp and bark their challenges to English Bulls and Scotch Collies, while pink- beribboned poodles of the fluffiest and softest of coats will strut their pride to the delight of the women and children and the disdain of their more powerful brother and sister canines.

Sixty-one handsome trophies have already been hung up as rich prizes to the dogs of most decided points of superiority. With such an array of trophies the reason for such a phenomenal entry list is not far to seek.

The show is to be held in the old armory, adjoining the A street rink, which is fast being prepared for the blue bloods of dogdom. And you who still lazily read these lines would better beshake [sic] yourself and view these dogs on dress parade next Saturday. All Sonoma county dog lovers will be there in force and it will be a dreary day for you if you attempt to find your ordinary relaxations in your usual haunts, because they will be deserted. Everyone will be at Santa Rosa's first aristicratic [sic] dog show.

- Santa Rosa Republican, October 17, 1912

DOG SHOW SATURDAY WILL INTRODUCE SOME WONDERS

A little army of men is as busy as bees pushing the work at the old armory on A street, preliminary to the big "toy dog" show which the local Kennel Club is offering as its curtain raiser in Sonoma County.

Two facts in themselves will make Saturday's "toy dog show" unusually notable, if there were not a dozen or a score, other casing to accomplish that result.

These two principal facts are, first, the large number of blue ribbon winners from other dog shows, which will be brought to Santa Rosa for competition, and second, the famous dog show judges who will come here to indicate the blue ribbon winners.

To name the famous prize winners that are coming would be to name many of the nation's finest canines. In all there will be fully 170 pure blood dogs of every breed and size displayed on the benches that are now being built around the entire outside of the immense floor space. Thirty of these animals will come from Sonoma county, while the balance, some 140 in number, will come from the most noted kennels of the state, including the kennels of many wealthy dog fanciers of Burlingame, San Mateo, Piedmont and other fashionable society sections.

Probably the most notable dog, from the standpoint of "perfect," is Miss Vera Lindgren's toy poodle. Nicholas Longworth, said to be the most perfect poodle in America. No less a dog authority than Judge James Mortimer is responsible for the statement that Nicholas Longworth is as near 100 per cent correct as he believes a dog can be bred. Nicholas, although diminutive in size, carries his championship honors with a dignity that would do a Great Dane proud, holding his somber, though baby-like face, at an angle that reflects an almost snobbish knowledge of his doggish superiority. Even the curl of his tassel-cropped tail shows that Nicholas realizes he is "some dog" and doesn't care who know its [sic].

- Press Democrat, October 17, 1912

THE STORES TO CLOSE AT EIGHT

Everybody Will Visit the Dog Show Tonight and Business Will Be Suspended Early

Local merchants are interested in the first bench show given under the auspices of the Santa Rosa Kennell [sic] Club and to manifest this interest in a way to assist the mangagement to make the show a success have agreed to close their places of business tonight at 8 o'clock to allow employes [sic] and others to attend the show.

Under the rule adopted some weeks ago all grocery stores close at 8 o'clock. In addition for tonight the following will also close at that hour:

[19 stores listed, including millineries, clothing, shoe and department stores]

- Press Democrat, October 18, 1912

Like zombies they stumbled towards courthouse square in downtown Santa Rosa as county workers, already buried under great piles of documents dumped upon them, struggled bravely on with forlorn hopes that someday the onslaught might somehow end.

Do I exaggerate? Only a little; sans the "zombie" flourish – which, as you'll soon learn becomes weirdly apropos later – that description is true to the spirit of how the Press Democrat described the situation in the beleaguered County Recorder's office during the spring of 1912:

The recording of these deeds has thrown Recorder Nagle and his force away behind with the regular work...Recorder Nagle is now receiving many letters of inquiry from many States in the Union, and especially has this been so during the past few days. It is impossible for him to answer all the letters that come. They arrive in stacks. Two thirds of the heavy mail received at the Recorder's office Thursday was made up of these deeds...

At issue were deeds to Sonoma County property which were often won in far-away raffles or drawings for a lucky admission ticket at a nickelodeon movie theater. Other local parcels were sold by real estate hustlers who printed up brochures promising summers spent at a Sonoma County vacation home "roaming through the Redwoods, over the forest-clad hills or along the side of rippling streams, watching and listening to the tumbling falls," or trying ones luck at tempting "the elusive mountain trout from its hiding place in the shady woodland pools." All for as little as $10/acre.

It was a con game, or course, but probably not the kind you suspect. This was actual land – albeit divided up in so-called "paper subdivisions" which only existed on maps. Rarely surveyed and often drawn up as drafting school exercises, the maps presented neat rectangular grids, usually of parcels 25 by 100 feet, that followed streets with charming names: "Cherry Creek Boulevard," or "Walnut way." In reality, the lots were often on steep, unbuildable hillsides where no streets would ever wind around those impassible slopes. Another name for these subdivisions is "wildcat" - they were on land only wildcats roamed.

As the 1912 Press Democrat reported, County Recorder Fred Nagle found himself under siege by people from out of the area who honestly believed they would soon be moving to California's Eden. "Letters from other counties, from British Columbia, from Nevada, from Arizona, from Oregon and Washington are pouring in to the Recorder, the Assessor, the Tax Collector and to other officials of Sonoma, pleading for information regarding these peculiar transactions," historian Tom Gregory wrote in a letter to the PD.

One man wrote to ask if the San Francisco trolley ran out to "Cloverdale Heights." A guy from Albuquerque came out looking for his lot near the town of "Russian River" and someone from Denver stopped by the Recorder's office to record his deed and left disgusted that he had been tricked into also buying another lot adjacent to the phony homesite he won with his "lucky number."

But Recorder Nagle and his staff weren't only kept busy answering letters and fielding long-distance phone calls; they were actually busily recording deeds for those unusable chunks of land because the new owner had sent the county the $6.50 recording fee. "The recording of these deeds has thrown Recorder Nagle and his force away behind with the regular work," reported the PD, noting the volume was particularly harmful because the county was then at the start of a legitimate real estate boom.

While the scam first attracted attention in 1912, that was by no means the end of it; wildcat lots continued to be given away or sold for years to come. Had even a teensy portion of these properties been developed, Sonoma county would be a far different place today. With over 15,000 of these lots in the Cazadero vicinity alone, "Cazadero Woodlands" and the other subdivisions would have been the largest city north of San Francisco - over five times the size of Santa Rosa at the time.

Virtually none of this land was developed, of course, and most buyers simply stopped paying taxes when they realized they had been swindled, so the land went back to the county or state. But holding on to the land was easy, too; the property tax was almost nothing and sometimes Uncle Fletcher's mysterious property out in California was handed down. Taxes paid or not, there always has been a steady trickle of people coming in to the Assessor's office with a yellowed slip of paper to enquire whether it showed they had a secret forgotten fortune. The answer was always: No.

That is, until resurrection day.



Flash forward sixty years as California enacts a minor tweak to the law to "let property owners know where they stand." Say you inherited 100 acres handed down in the family from great-great-grandpa. He bought half of it from a neighbor in the 1880s, tore down the separating fence and farmed it all as a single plot. Did you inherit two parcels or one? According to the new law, you owned two – as long as some paperwork called an "administrative certificate of compliance" was obtained from the county. Sounds fair, right?

But that was just the beginning. State law also decreed anyone with a deed had the right to reclaim property lost in tax default by paying all the back taxes due. Thus whomever had the deed to Uncle Fletcher's worthless little parcel could own it again. That deed-holder could then go to the county to obtain one of those administrative certificates. And with that in hand, the little parcel, once just part of a grid on an old and useless map, sprang into life as a duly-recognized legal property that could be sold – or developed.

'Turns out quite a bit had happened since back in the day when poor old Fred Nagle was grumbling about the futility of recording all those worthless paper lots - namely, it wasn't so certain the land was still worthless. There were now paved roads and utilities available in once wild 'n' wooly places like Cazadero and Dry Creek, and modern construction techniques made it possible to build on places that would have been impossible when the maps were drawn. At the same time all Sonoma county property values were skyrocketing in the 1980s, in large part because there were strict zoning restrictions on new land development - regulations that didn't apply to Uncle Fletcher's movie theater prize, once it was awarded a certificate of compliance.

In the early 1990s I wrote often about the fallout from the certificate process for the old E.I.R. newspaper, California Lawyer magazine, and other publications, and much of what follows is lifted from those articles. I found planners fearful the certificates would destroy Sonoma county agriculture, turning the rural areas into a crazy quilt of McMansion subdivisions, far from sewer lines, modern roads, and other infrastructure needed for their support. And under state law, the county was powerless to stop it. "It's like 'Night of the Living Dead,'" one county planner grimly joked to me, "all of these old properties are rising from the grave."

They had reason to fear: There were an estimated 75,000 lots in this county that could be resurrected by certificates. Recorder Fred and his successors had been busy, indeed.

Making matters worse, developers were always two giant steps ahead of the county. Uncle Fletcher's bungalow-sized parcel wasn't worth developing by itself – but having deeds for almost every parcel in his entire wildcat subdivision was a different story. In the 1980s and early 1990s there were companies formed in Sonoma county to search out descendants of all those people who once sent the county that $6.50 registration fee. It was no easy task; the average size of these wildcat subdivisions was over 800 lots, according to a county memo. The game of find-the-heir was like a marathon scavenger hunt – collect 'em all to win the prize.

Was it worth all that work? You bet; Mr. Developer could then strut through the doors of the county planning department pushing a wheelbarrow full of documents – one infamous submission included over 25 pounds of paperwork – and declare he had the rights to build a mammoth project. As the parcels were recognized as having existed since 1912 (or whenever), his project superseded all modern rules and environmental protections. It didn't matter if the land was in an agricultural preserve or community greenbelt; it didn't matter whether the land could pass a septic "perc" test to allow homeowners the luxury of flush toilets. It even didn't matter whether the property had reasonable access. In a scandalous 1992 application, a developer claimed two hundred certificates on a remote, 3,000 ft. elevation hilltop near the Geysers where the only access was Pine Flat Road, terrifyingly steep and scarcely wider than a private driveway.

But the developers never proposed following the original subdivision layout on the old maps; those were just grid lines, remember, with no relation to actual terrain. No, the certificates of compliance were just bargaining chips. After paperwork for the certificates were filed, developers would follow by requesting "lot-line adjustments," allowing them to cluster lots on the best parts of the land and build as many homes as possible. This also allowed developers to posture as the good guy while negotiating with the county - "Hey, I have 500 certificates, but I'm asking permission to build only 150 houses."

And in some cases, the threat of possible certificates was all a developer needed. The county was so worried about development at the peak of Pine Flat Road that the Open Space District bought it. No paperwork was filed applying for certificates on the supposed 200 parcels, although the Sonoma Land Trust and the developer privately agreed he could probably get at least 27 recognized.

Sonoma county led the legal fight against the certificate process for more than three decades. Details would probably bore most readers here, but it was mostly a story of disheartening defeats. The county adopted a cutoff date of 1929, which was the year the Subdivision Map Act was passed in the state. That law required counties to have regulations and local ordinances defining how subdivision should be done, and the county reasoned that properties after that year would at least have been surveyed or otherwise proven to be real. But a few months later the Attorney General slapped that rule down, leaving all doors open.

Only since the year 2001 has the pendulum has begun swinging back to local control. In a landmark case involving land near Sebastopol, the state Supreme Court ruled that old maps weren't necessarily legitimate simply because they existed, and certainly were no justification for bypassing current rules and regs. Another court decision ruled against a Petaluma developer and has apparently quashed the hopes of anyone using a paper subdivision map created prior to 1929. So at long last, the fake subdivisions seem to be dead and buried.

The long arc of this story is amazing, if you ponder a moment on it: A 1912 movie ticket sold in Kansas became part of a magic talisman that would allow its bearer immunity to laws in California, 70 or 80 or 90 years later. Robert Ripley might have enjoyed writing it up for his Believe It Or Not! series. He liked to tell unbelievable stories.

BUNGALOW LOTS GO WITH SHOW

Rushing Business Being Carried On by Numerous Nickelodeons Throughout the Country

Editor Press Democrat: The "Bungalow Site Industry" in Sonoma county goes merrily on, and the "Fairy Sylvan Resorts" where the fairies may resort after they have fallen to the "game" and have come through with the $6.50 or other cash for the deed to the lot are going just as fast as the "drawings" can be drawn. Imperial Sonoma has fallen into hard lines, and her name is being used abroad to extract coin from the "easy" ones. The game is a little, simple thing--a sweet little simple thing. Somebody files a map--calls his tract by a catchy name--offers his lots by divers and lottery-ish methods, and the fish rises to the bait. These "opportunities" are not given generally to the public in Sonoma county, but at a distance. Letters from other counties, from British Columbia, from Nevada, from Arizona, from Oregon and Washington are pouring in to the Recorder, the Assessor, the Tax Collector and to other officials of Sonoma, pleading for information regarding these peculiar transactions. The character of the victims may be determined by the tenor of these letters--they are poor, and in many instances, illiterate, just the class of persons that may fall to such a cheap skin-game as this...

...And the location where these "Sharks" are doing their "best" work strike one as peculiar. Around Sacramento, where a local real land-boom is on, the victims are buying $6.50  mirage bungalow site in Sonoma county; in Los Angeles--where every prospect pleases (or is advertised to please) and every man is not vile--they are sending their six-fifty deeds to the county for record. A man in Albuquerque, N. M., in a raffle won a six-shooter, and with his "win" was a lot--20x40 feet--somewhere in the neighborhood of "Russian River," Sonoma county. After he had dropped eight or ten dollars in the game, he loaded the other portion of his winnings and went gunning for the "lot" sharp. He is now putting in his leisure time cussing Sonoma county, Cal., and yet admiring the scheme that beat him--an old, seasoned territorial sport--so easily.

Among the letters the County Recorder receives daily is one he found in his mail yesterday from Oregon City, Or., in which the writer says he won at a Nickelodeon in his city a lot in this county and he wants to know if the property is worth the $6.50. D. Andersen--that's his name--(can anybody give him the information?) inclosed with his note of inquiry a handbill of the show describing the mythical lot, and that description is a gem: "Two bubbling, dashing, splashing, crashing, like the famous waters that come down at Lodore[,] branches of Russian River flow the idealic [sic] place; it is on the Northwestern Pacific line, while Healdsburg, a city of over 4,000 inhabitants, is not; Santa Rosa, "the ideal city of California" and Luther Burbank, "the plant wizzard," (with two z's) are invoked to further the "boost." And it ends up with a request to "Come Along and Bring the Children and take Advantage of Thes FREE DRAWINGS and Secure a Home Site at this Famous Resort in Sonoma County, where a Chance is Given Away ABSOLUTELY FREE With Each Ticket."

The time has come to stop this business. If the Board of Supervisors, or a Grand Jury of this county cannot do something to discourage the traffic, the newspapers should take the matter up. Every exchange should reprint this article, and spread the tiding abroad that this cheap, cheap game may be ended. Our splendid county, with her grand scenic features, is getting the advertising she does not deserve, and does not want. Sonoma wants "everybody to come along and bring the children," but she does not want the bunkoed before they get here.

Tom Gregory.
Santa Rosa, Feb. 9, 1912.

- Press Democrat, February 10, 1912

MANY MYTHICAL LOTS ARE SOLD

"Cloverdale Heights" a Rugged Piece of Hill Not Yet Surveyed, They Say

From Cloverdale comes another complaint of the manner in which people are being duped all over the State and in adjoining states by the sale of lots in worthless tracts.

Mention of what looks like near fraud, at least has been made from time to time in the Press Democrat in connection with the immense amount of work entailed at the office of County Recorder Fred Nagle by the recording of deeds to lots given away with tickets at moving picture shows in different parts of the State. The following from the Cloverdale "Reveille" will be read with interest:

Cloverdale business men have the last several days received letters from parties making inquiries regarding "Cloverdale Heights" and another piece of property which bears the rather high sounding title of "Cloverdale Terrace." These inquiries, which come from San Francisco and other cities, some from as far as Kansas City, Mo., are from people who have invested small sums of money under the delusions that they were securing a fine summer home overlooking Cloverdale. In some instances the inquiries show a lack of information regarding the location of Cloverdale, evidently believing the "Orange City" is a suburb of San Francisco and connected with the metropolis by cable or trolley car. The Reveille is informed that the Recorder's office is kept busy placing deeds on record to lots in the above named tracts. As near as can be learned "Cloverdale Heights" is nothing more than a rugged piece of land located about three miles northwest of Cloverdale via air line, with no road leading to the land, except an old untraveled one new unfit for use. Until sold a short time ago it was owned by Erik Angler, who took it up as a homestead some years ago.

- Press Democrat, April 13, 1912

MANY PEOPLE STILL BITING ON MOVING PICTURE TICKET LOTS

"Does San Francisco Street Car Line Run Out to Cloverdale Heights?" Asks One Enquirer

Wouldn't this jar you?

"Will you tell me if the San Francisco electric car system runs to the place?" asks an inquirer in a letter for information about Cloverdale Heights, one of the rock-bound "paradises" for which tickets are being "given away" in chances in moving picture houses, presumably all over the country. This inquiry came from a lot "winner" in Kansas City.

Such a big laugh. And yet it is quite possible that the inquirer had been led to believe that the beautiful city of Cloverdale was located on the electric car system of San Francisco, when in reality it is many miles away and on the line of the Northwestern Pacific. Some time since the Cloverdale people considered the taking of some steps to prevent deception practiced upon unsuspecting people by such clap-trap as the proposition mentioned.

The other day a well-known citizen of Cloverdale called at the office of County Recorder Fred G. Nagle to ask where the "Heights" were located, and was surprised to find that such a place really existed.

Still They Come

Stacks of deeds are still being received at the Recorder's office from lot owners in the several plots that are being handled in different parts of Sonoma county by means of the moving picture house tickets. The plan has been explained several times in this and other papers. But people are still biting. The recording of these deeds has thrown Recorder Nagle and his force away behind with the regular work. The recording of legitimate transactions has been very heavy for months on account of the activity in the realty business and the many new settlers who are coming to the county and purchasing homes.

Came From Denver

A few days ago a man came to Recorder Nagle's office. He had traveled to Sonoma county from Denver, Colorado, to inspect the lots he had become heir to through holding "a lucky number." In addition, he had been induced to purchase an adjoining lot. It cost him his time and about $200 to come to the "ideal summer site." He turned back disgusted and went home.

The plan has progressed far beyond the boundaries of California, as this instance indicates. Recorder Nagle is now receiving many letters of inquiry from many States in the Union, and especially has this been so during the past few days. It is impossible for him to answer all the letters that come. They arrive in stacks. Two thirds of the heavy mail received at the Recorder's office Thursday was made up of these deeds to lots.

As much as possible, Recorder Nagle, County Assessor Frank E. Dowd, and the newspapers of this city and county have been sending broadcast that the great county of Sonoma, with its unequaled resources and matchless climate, has nothing whatever to do with this false boom of practically worthless property. It could all be avoided if people would reason out the improbability of securing for the song of a few dollars--$6.50 for the deed--must be in the nature of a catch for an easy mark.

- Press Democrat, May 24, 1912