by Paul R. Spitzzeri
With the onset of the 20th century, Los Angeles and its environs underwent another in the series of booms that have characterized much of the city’s history for the last 150 or so years. The first sustained and significant period of growth in the Angel City extended from the late 1860s, when the town had probably fewer than 5,000 residents, through the mid 1870s, with F.P.F. Temple, son-in-law of Homestead founders William Workman and Nicolasa Urioste, accounted as one of the era’s “city makers.” The bust that burst forth in 1875-1876 included the city’s first major business failure, that of the Temple and Workman bank, and quite a few of the nearly 15,000 citizens of Los Angeles left, leaving, officially, just over 11,000 when the 1880 census was taken.
After several years of general economic malaise, the situation improved markedly by the mid-Eighties and, largely thanks to the completion of a direct transcontinental railroad link to Los Angeles at the end of 1885, a much bigger growth spurt took place, often called the Boom of the Eighties. This peaked during the administration of Mayor William H. Workman, the nephew of the Workmans of La Puente, in 1887 and 1888. With the ensuing bust, the 1890 census recorded some 50,000 Angelenos.
While there were periods of major growth during the so-called Gay Nineties, there were also six years of local drought and a national depression that erupted in 1893; still the population of the Angel City doubled to a bit north of 100,000 persons when the 1900 census was taken. The following year, the first of the new century, marked the third major boom, with Los Angeles experiencing a tripling of population during the “Oughts” while suburban regions of the county also grew rapidly.
In the political realm, Los Angeles was a Democratic Party stronghold from the 1850s, the earliest days of the American period, up through the Boom of the Eighties. Subsequently, however, the Republicans rose to dominance for a long stretch, as well, though there were some outliers from the Democratic Party, including Meredith P. Snyder, who was mayor from 1896 to 1898, 1900 to 1904 and 1919 to 1921 and William H. Workman, who served three consecutive terms as city treasurer from 1901 to 1907, albeit as a conservative member of his party.
With two straight terms as chief executive of the Angel City, Snyder was ripe for an upset in the 1904 campaign, but Republicans were fractured as they met in a convention to choose their municipal candidates for the early December election. When it came to its mayoral candidate, a surprising dark-horse emerged, Owen McAleer, who was in his first term as the First Ward representative on the City Council but who’d contemplated not seeking reelection.
Beyond this, however, McAleer was a highly unlikely choice for the G.O.P. to run, except that he had the support of some powerful figures in city politics. Born in 1858 in a little hamlet east of Toronto, Canada, McAleer was raised in Youngstown, Ohio, roughly between the industrial powerhouses of Pittsburgh and Cleveland. From a young age, he worked as a boiler maker and continued in that occupation when he moved to Los Angeles as the Boom of the 1880s was coming to an end.
He was the foreman of the boiler house at Baker Iron Works, which was established in 1874 in the Angel City by Milo S. Baker. The firm grew correspondingly with the aforementioned boom and, after Baker died in 1894, his son Fred, who was just 22, took over the company and led it to even greater heights (literally) as Los Angeles continued its stunning ascension. Fred Baker was also a Republican Party stalwart and Second Ward council member for two terms between 1896 and 1900. Not surprisingly, he groomed McAleer in his entry into municipal politics, culminating in the older man’s election to the council in 1902, though little was known about him other than that he was avid cyclist and described by the Los Angeles Express as a “fine type American mechanic.”
During the first year of his term, however, McAleer got some significant press attention for his opposition to the powerful streetcar companies, both in terms of the ease with which the firms secured city franchises for their lines and his battle to get them to provide easier transfers for riders. As the automobile was only starting to become a bigger transportation presence, the council member’s fights against rapid transit companies as well as his insistence that business involving them be more transparently discussed by the council found favorable comment by the Express and the Los Angeles Times.
Also impressed by his stances was the powerful Municipal League, which the latter paper disingenuously described as manifesting “a lively interest in municipal affairs,” was cited by the Times in October 1903 as having “followed the course of the Councilman closely.” Moreover, his public statements and voting record “have met with its hearty approval” and the League continued with its approbation as McAleer’s second year on the council ensued.
Despite his growing stature among Republicans, McAleer was unsure about whether to throw his hat into the ring and challenge Snyder until rather late in the campaign of 1904. While the incumbent manifested public confidence in his chances for a third term, his challenger was dismissed as a nothing but a mere “boilermaker.” In the Times of 27 November, McAleer addressed the knock on him by allowing “I am a boilermaker, and I am proud of it,” adding that an improperly maintained boiler was a danger. So, he continued, “I don’t believe the city boiler will burst if entrusted to my workmanship.”
This was hardly the most exciting metaphor (though his corruption-ridden successor, Arthur C. Harper actually issued buttons in the 1906 race that simply said “He’s Good Enough For Us”—a future post will cover Harper) but McAleer ran a very simple campaign with one his standard lines being “I am going to give the people what they are entitled to—a clean, businesslike administration.” Another statement issued in the Times just prior to the election on 4 December was also terse and to the point, as he affirmed his support for the G.O.P.’s national platform concerning capital and labor and that “neither must be permitted to infringe upon the rights and interests of the people” and that both “when lawfully formed for lawful purposes” were protected by the law but “neither can be permitted to break them.”
Naturally, it is hard to contest these generalizations, which presupposed, apparently, an equality between capital and labor, but given the intense ferment of labor conflict in America during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, McAleer’s position was certainly more pro-business, both because of his background as a Baker official and the Times endorsement of his candidacy. In any case, he concluded by promising that, as mayor, he would do all he could to uphold these principles “and that all classes shall get a ‘square deal’ throughout my entire administration.”
McAleer took the plurality in seven of the nine city wards and emerged as victor with nearly 14,300 votes to Snyder’s total of a little under 11,000, winning by more than 13 percentage points. Under a week prior to the 5 December election, at the close of November, the city’s auditing year ended, it reflecting the analysis and reporting needed following the fiscal year of a July to June cycle. Subsequently, the newly elected auditor (now the city controller), Lewis H. Schwaebe. who was later an automobile dealer and the federal customs collector, issued his report for that year.
Because the 400-page report is chock full of notable information, we’re going to divide this post into parts and begin with this first one by primarily focusing on Mayor McAleer’s inaugural message. The first portion of the report lists city officials, including members of the city council, the various commissions (police, fire, civil service, park, health, water works (of which Fred Baker was a member), library, municipal art, and playground, as well as for the department of justice, labor bureau and board of education.
The opening of the chief executive’s statement, dated 3 January 1905 included the observation that,
Los Angeles, once and within comparatively recent memory, a mere village in size and importance, has now attained metropolitan proportions, with a population of nearly, if not quite two hundred thousand, with large and rapidly-growing commercial interests, and with all the features and advantages of a progressive, modern city. It is needless to say that the public affairs of such a city demand of those who are entrusted with their management the exercise of the utmost diligence, care and honesty, in order that the revenues of the city may be economically and advantageously applied to the purposes for which they have been received.
Gross receipts were pegged at $2.75 million, while the number of municipal employees was around 1,400. and these were said to manifest “the magnitude and importance of the business affairs of the city.” Significantly, the mayor reported, while half of the current fiscal year was over, “much more than one-half of the city’s revenues for this year has already been expended.” McAleer, therefore, called for “rigid economy” including “retrenchments” when warranted in the public interest. As one example, oiling of the city’s streets were to be shelved during the winter, though it was added that, beyond cost, that work could not be done “safely and advantageously” during rainy weather.
The auditor’s office was lauded for its accounting practices and McAleer added that “I recommend that all departments of the city government be required to conform” to those procedures and practices. Supply procurement was also praised for saving the city hundreds of dollars monthly. With respect to the water department, which was formed in 1898 after thirty years of private water company management of, would soon be overseeing the massive and controversial project that led to the 1913 completion of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, the mayor offered that conservation and the wise use of the precious fluid would mean that “our water supply will be ample for the city’s needs for several years to come.” It was noted that sanitary conditions were considered excellent and that “all feat of contamination will be removed” with improvements to the water works plant.
As for the police department, a recent spate of hiring was determined to be “in numbers and efficiency commensurate with the size of the city” and “adequate to our needs.” With the construction of sub-stations, one of which now underway, further efficiencies were expected. The city jail, however, was insufficient “to accommodate the average number of vagrants and petty criminals confined there” and McAleer recommended a workhouse for these prisoners, while he added that having “a rock pile would, no doubt, have the effect of keeping many undesirable characters away from our city.” Lastly, he applauded the “final eradication of the plague spot” known broadly as the “crib district” and observed that prostitution and other social evils were “permitted by those who were charged with the duty of enforcing the law until its suppression was compelled by an aroused public sentiment.”
Little was said about the fire department, other than that “rapid and constant growth” mandated increase in protection services, so the mayor called for new engine houses in the First, Second, Sixth and Eighth wards and, he added, “I recommend that fire plugs be placed in the middle of each block in the business district of the city.” While parks were determined to be given “special attention” because of the Angel City’s climate and large tourism base and helped with health and pleasure, McAleer felt that reductions in maintenance staff could be implemented during certain, though undefined, periods of the year.
The massive growth of Los Angeles meant that there were 33 miles of streets improved the prior year, including four paved with asphalt and the mayor implored the council to continued with “the paving of the most traveled streets of the city, and that special special measures be adopted to keep such streets in good condition and free from dirt and dust by regular and frequent sweeping and cleaning.” He also advocated for removing poles and overhead wires as well as the preservation of shade trees “from mutilation or destruction” as “matters of great importance” that “should receive your consideration and attention.”
When it came to the public library, formed in 1872 with Thomas W. Temple (the eldest child of F.P.F. and Antonia Margarita Workman), McAleer opined that “the city has been woefully derelict in its duty . . . in neglecting to provide it with safe, adequate and suitable accommodations.” Even as the facility was considered the most utilized and best run in the nation, it was “probably the worst housed” in “cramped quarters on the third floor of the City Hall,” which was crowded with municipal operations. The mayor suggested “the erection of a worthy and adequate library building by submitting to the voters the proposition of issuing bonds for that purpose,” though a “library war” would burst out in 1905.
One of the areas of city administration that most struggled to keep up with rampant growth was the public school system and McAleer noted that there was the need for “constant additions” which was “likely to continue for many years to come.” His suggestion was to establish a school construction fund so that new facilities would be erected and “the school department may keep pace at all times with the demand upon it for school room.” It was also advised that all structures be made of brick, wood still being very common.
The mayor briefly noted that the garbage collection contract was to expire in August, leaving plenty of time to decide on a course of action and a contractor. With respect to utilities, McAleer reminded the council that draft ordinances by City Attorney William B. Matthews would require all electric, gas and phone companies to submit annual revenue and expenditure statements, along with the cost and value of property such as plants, and regulating the sale and use of gas and electricity. While these businesses were not to “be subjected to confiscatory legislation,” the public interest demanded that these firms provide “the best possible service” at compensation that allowed for “a fair and reasonable profit upon the capital actually invested.”
Turning to one of his core campaign issues, the mayor noted that “Los Angeles has now a splendid system of street railways contributing greatly to the convenience of our people, and materially aiding in promoting the growth and prosperity of our city.” A signal (!) improvement, however, was that “transfers should be given and accepted between all intersecting lines” and McAleer added that, since “various lines are operated by allied corporations,” having a universal transfer system “would probably involve no pecuniary loss.”
Addressing civil service, the mayor reminded the council that the December 1902 election included the successful passage of amendments to the city charter for civil service, while the recent campaign included another successful measure regarding the fire and police departments and labor registration. Pending approval by the state legislature, McAleer continued, “our civil service scheme will be complete” and allowing for a “standard of service in all departments to a degree unsurpassed by any other city in the country.” With more equity in determining appointments and promotions, only the most qualified persons would work in city government and, with the people having spoken, the mayor concluded, “it is our duty to see that the spirit and letter of all the civil-service amendments . . . shall be loyally complied with and observed.”
Lastly, McAleer discussed franchises, with another charter amendment vote approving limits of no more than 21 years and awaiting ratification at Sacramento. This notwithstanding, the mayor added that “there is no room for doubt that it is the sentiment and will of our people” that this limit be the standard and he urged the council to observe it. He then concluded,
I tender you my active and cordial co-operation in the conduct of the business and affairs of this city, and invite a like cooperation from you, during this administration, to the end that our work may be well and harmoniously done, and that the confidence reposed in us by our fellow-citizens may be justified.
We’ll return soon with part two with reports from such officers as the auditor, attorney and assessor, so check back for that.