by Paul R. Spitzzeri
Having sworn an oath of loyalty to the Union and reportedly posting a bond of $5,000 as a guarantee after openly supporting the Confederacy during the early stages of the Civil War, E.J.C. Kewen left the federal prison at Alcatraz Island (which was formerly owned by William Workman, by a grant from Governor Pío Pico, and his son-in-law, F.P.F. Temple) and took his elected seat in the California Assembly. He served his first single year term and was then won the 1863 election, along with fellow Democrat and attorney Ygnacio Sepúlveda, for the seat.
Despite his prior brief imprisonment, Kewen gave, early in 1864 as the war continued to rage, a floor speech in the Capitol against a so-called “disloyal resolution” in which he was said to have commented that was doing so “from a sense of duty to 34,000 patriots in California, whose principles he in part represented.” The pro-Union Los Angeles News of 12 February (that happening to be the 55th birthday of President Abraham Lincoln) made a point of stating that former Governor John B. Weller defiantly stated, just five months before, that 60,000 men would defend him if he was arrested for disloyalty. The paper concluded,
Kewen ought to go where he can aid personally the rebels in arms [many greater Los Angeles Confederate sympathizers did just that, sometimes with state-issued weapons from militia service]; it would be far more to his credit than to stay here and “talk” against the Government. If we had the power, we would make all of his kind leave a loyal State, or else “dry up.”
Meanwhile, Kewen continued his law practice during his two-year legislative career, representing former Los Angeles constable Boston Daimwood in a criminal case in late 1863 before Daimwood, with several other prisoners, was broken from jail by a mob and lynched to beams at the front of the Rocha Adobe (formerly the courthouse), and George F. Morris, convicted of manslaughter and for whom Kewen sought a pardon in summer 1864.
When the 1864 presidential election approached, a mass Democratic Party rally, which included William Workman as a vice-president, was held in Los Angeles and Kewen, commented the pro-Confederate Los Angeles Star, “for an hour and a half enchanted the audience with the fervid eloquence and charming rhetoric for which he has so long, so justly been famed.” Other speakers included the recent Governor John G. Downey, who served in that position from 1860 to 1862; Andrew J. King of the prominent and oft-notorious El Monte clan; and federal Judge Murray Morrison, who was Kewen’s brother-in-law (they were married to sisters Jennie and Fannie White, respectively).
Despite the remarkable collapse of William Walker’s filibustering adventure in Nicaragua nearly a decade before and in which Kewen had a prominent role, as discussed in part one, the attorney and orator apparently remained proud of his involvement. On 1 June 1865, he spoke, as the third in a series following the Rev. Elias Birdsall and prominent lawyer Volney E. Howard, “On the Advent and Progress of Liberalism in Central America” at the City Hall (also the Court House in what was built in 1859 by Jonathan Temple as a commercial structure). The talk was for the benefit of the recently- completed St. Athanasius’ Episcopal Church, the first Protestant Church in the Angel City.
The News, happy to score Kewen when given the opportunity, remarked in its 24 June 1865 edition quoted a San Francisco paper called the Daily American Flag (published from 1864-1867) and which advocated for amending the California Constitution to allow for voting rights for Black men, as stating that,
E.J.C. Kewen, of Los Angeles, who was so conspicuously identified with the Copperhead party [“Peace Democrats,” generally in Union states, who opposed the Civil War and sought to negotiate a settlement with the Confederates] is decidedly in favor of negro suffrage! He considers that the verdict of the war is that colored people are men and that, politically, all men are equal in a republic.
Whether Kewen actually held to that position and viewpoint, it is interesting to note that, after the passage and ratification of the 15th Amendment and when African-Americans held a celebration and ball to mark the momentous occasion, Kewen spoke to the assemblage. Responding to a short article in the Marysville Appeal that mentioned his oration as well as that it was “no doubt amusing to those anxious to hear his say,” the News of 29 April 1870 tersely observed that “the Democracy had nothing whatever to do with the celebration, and any part Col. Kewen may have taken, was entirely disconnected” with that or any other party.
This prompted a lengthy reply from Kewen, who skewered the “Radical [Republican] press” for making more of what he called “the trivial circumstance of the presence of a Democrat at the recent festival of the Freedmen at Los Angeles.” Moreover, he lambasted the News for its being “morbidly sensitive” to the statements of the “Radicals.” Kewen further insisted in a remarkable defense that,
If my whim or inclination should prompt me to proclaim to the “dusky” citizens the uniform persistence with which I combatted every steps in their paths to progress to political advancement, and assure them that I “accepted the situation,” as I would the Providential affliction of the cholera or small-pox, for the reason that it was unavoidable, I cannot see that Radicalism has been afforded any occasion for mirth, or Democracy for regret. If, in the instincts of a liberal partizanship [sic] I should counsel the newly-fledged citizen to the exercise of becoming meekness and humility in his new sphere, and impress him upon the necessity of educating himself into a proper appreciation of his obligations to government and country, there is nothing in this that should be provocative of satire, or suggestive of a wound upon friendly sensibilities. I have yet to learn that it is incompatible with Democracy to observe towards the humblest class of citizens a decent and respectful civility. That the negro has been elevated into citizenship is a fault not imputable to any co-operation of mine. The government, if not the law, has proclaimed his status, and my opposition in the future, as it has been in the past, shall be characterized by not affected contempt for or disobedience to existing authority . . . in the meantime [I] cannot admit of any justifiable reflection either upon my political integrity or my character as a citizen, in the fact of being courteous to my enemies. For my participation in the “jubilee,” as a man, I have no compunction, as a Democrat, no contrition.
This passage is pregnant with all kinds of interpretive possibilities, including the fact that, as a former Whig and disciple of Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser (the Missouri of 1820 and that of California thirty years later) of Kentucky, Kewen likely held similar views regarding the gradual emancipation of slaves, if not those of any egalitarianism between the races. One wonders if his three years of education in Connecticut affected his views, as well.
As for his self-professed rigid adherence to “existing authority,” this is interesting in light of both his Nicaragua filibustering and his Civil War-era activities. Moreover, as we’ll see subsequently with the Express articles featured here, Kewen had a habit of an “eminently peculiar” approach to oration and the question of whether he could property apply his “verbal wealth to logical control”—these comments were made by his close friend and long-time law partner, James G. Howard. Finally, it should be no surprise that a speaker direct favorable comments to the audience, not always mindful of what others with opposing views or positions might think.
Speaking of opponents, there was likely no shortage of bad blood and enmity between Kewen and Phineas Banning, the Port Admiral of Wilmington who received a great deal of patronage and financial benefit from his alliance with the Union Army during the late war. When Kewen was arrested and confined at Alcatraz, it was reported to be on the complaints of three persons as to his purported disloyalty—whether Banning was one of them is purely speculative, but it is notable that, when, in fall 1865, he won the first of two successive elections as a state senator, Kewen spoke against him.
The News of 5 September reported that Banning spoke to a large crowd in front of the Court House, some of which were “democrats and curiosity-seekers,” but that “a large number had assembled to hear Messrs. [Murray] Morrison, [Volney E.] Howard and Kewen, but were somewhat disappointed on hearing the announcement made by those gentlemen” that, as they and Banning had been making stump speeches together, “that by agreement with Mr. Banning, at the Monte [El Monte] on that day, they had promised they would not meddle with Mr. B’s mongrel stock in trade that evening” and would postpone their speeches for two days.
The paper was not a Banning supporter, instead promoting the candidacy of Andrés Pico, formerly Assembly member and brother of the ex-governor, so it criticized him for that “mongrel stock in trade” as well as for the fact that he was “one of the highly favored, by the Government, during the war,” while also doubting his sincerity regarding opposition to Black suffrage.
Moreover, it asserted that he wanted to move the county seat from Los Angeles to “Banningville,” that is, Wilmington, and would aggressively move to further feather his nest, especially in light of the war’s end (in fact, Banning and other Angelenos did create and build the Los Angeles and San Pedro Railroad during his four years in Sacramento, where they had to get a legislative charter.) When the Democratic trio gave their speeches in front of the Lafayette Hotel on Main Street, “Col. Kewen told some wholesome truths in relation to Mr. Banning’s attempt to steal their party, and concerning the so-called Union convention which nominated Mr. B. for the Senate.”
Concerning James G. Howard, he and Banning joined forces in a law practice that opened at the end of 1865, on the upper floor of the brick commercial building erected by Jonathan Temple eight years later across from the Court House and comprising the end of the Temple Block, which later included three other structures constructed by Temple’s brother, F.P.F., between 1868 and 1871. Howard was born in New York State in 1820 and was a filibusterer, as well; in his case, one led by a Venezuelan general in Cuba in the early Fifties, with Howard barely escaping.
In 1853, Howard migrated to California and settled in Sacramento where he had a law partner, while also drawing attention from his newspaper essays under the nom-de-plume of “Col. Blove.” After some years in San Francisco and Virginia City, Nevada, during early silver mining excitement there, Howard resettled in Los Angeles in 1865 and established his partnership with Kewen. A review of Howard’s life after his 1890 passing commented that “this firm had a very fine practice and for years had the cream of the criminal business before the Los Angeles courts.” Aside from a little over a year in the notorious territorial Arizona mining boomtown of Tombstone, Howard lived in the Angel City for the remainder of his life.
Much as would be said about Kewen, the Los Angeles Herald of 16 September 1890 remarked that Howard “was a man of remarkable intellectual force” with “few equals at the bar” and “had as great success in criminal practice” as any peer. Moreover, the paper observed, “he was a man of fine literary taste, and master of as pure and virile an English as [Jonathan] Swift himself” with an especial talent for satire.
Kewen’s home at El Molino would later be discussed in terms of its agricultural products as well as the residence and its owners, as we’ll see soon, but, in November 1866, he advertised for the lease of 100 acres, including “a house and orchard” as well as a 25-acre vineyard.” It was not explained why this was offered or whether a lease was actually effected, though it may have been because Kewen thought it better to live in Los Angeles than in the country.
As an example of what Howard called “a temperament ardent, enthusiastic and restless,” more likely applied to his public speaking which could often be relentlessly attacking of an opponent, as well as “a tested courage more often mettlesome than discreet,” with these attributes likely to “provoke enmities,” the 18 September 1866 edition of the News reported on a “Shooting Affray” involving Kewen.
The paper demurred from making any comment as to cause, because it felt that would come out in a legal proceeding, but merchant Harris Newmark wrote about a conflict between Kewen and Frederick Limberg that started out as a fist-fight in which the latter floored the former. Kewen subsequently procured a pistol and laid in wait for Limberg, who Newmark said was widely known as “The Flying Dutchman” for his unbounded energy and quick gait. Kewen shot Limberg in the stomach with the latter surviving his wounds (though he was, Newmark related, soon killed by Indians in Arizona after leaving Los Angeles), but a late October trial resulted in Kewen’s acquittal, apparently because of self-defense.
This was not the first time he’d gotten involved in a gun battle, as, in spring 1860, after reading a News article criticizing his handling, as district attorney, of a murder case, Kewen argued in court before before District Court Judge Benjamin Hayes that any testimony given the day the article appeared should be stricken. This led defense attorney Columbus Sims, who’d taken over the defense of Pancho Daniel from Kewen not two years prior, to rise and claim responsibility for the article.
Enraged, Kewen threw the newspaper and some choice invectives at Sims, who responded by hurling a drinking glass, pitcher and ink stand at his adversary. Kewen drew a Derringer pistol and cocked it, but was grabbed by bystanders, though the single shot fired and wounded a Latino observer causing “a scene of indescribable confusion” as everyone fled in panic from the little courtroom. Judge Hayes grabbed the defendant and they huddled behind the bench until order was restored and the court adjourned.
In 1868, Kewen sought another elective office, this being to Congress for California’s first district, comprising a wide swath of the southern part of the state. While he did not secure the Democratic nomination (who knows if there was any fallout from the 1865 issue of Black suffrage?), he did go to Sacramento with A.J. King, Volney Howard’s son Charles, and Thomas D. Mott to serve as county delegates to the state convention.
As the decade came to a close, there were a pair of notable criminal defense cases that hearkened back to what was said in the Howard encomium regarding the partnership with Kewen. On 31 October 1870, after a dispute regarding a reward involving conflict regarding a Chinese woman and men in that community who fought over here, Constable Job Dye confronted his boss, Marshal William C. Warren about the matter. In broad daylight on an open street, the two pulled out their pistols and fired at each other, with Warren killed. Kewen defended Dye with two other attorneys and was found not guilty on the grounds of self-defense.
In early 1870, Kewen and Howard were hired after the death of María Reyes de Lachenais by her widow, Michel, in the administration of her estate. It was later alleged that Michel Lachenais, already or suspected to have committed homicides in 1861 and 1866, for which he had to flee Los Angeles for San Diego before returning, caused the death of his wife, as well. Then, at the end of the year, after a dispute with a neighbor, Jacob Bell, Lachenais shot and killed Bell and was jailed.
A vigilance committee stormed the jail, seized Lachenais and lynched him and it was later reported that some vigilantes went looking for his lawyers. The story was that, when Howard was located, he told the men that, as he was the junior partner in the firm:
We are old friends; be generous; let’s compromise. Hang Kewen, he’s the head of the firm.
We’ll return with part three, so be sure to come back for more of the remarkable story of E.J.C. Kewen, including the coverage in the 22 August 1872 Weekly Express.