by Paul R. Spitzzeri
For a half-century or more, interactions between the Temple and Baldwin families ran a notable gamut from a desperate deal for funds to continue the operations of the Temple and Workman bank, to the foreclosure of that loan, to legal wrangling over a good three decades and more, to a cordial relationship between two members of each clan.
The featured object from the Homestead’s holdings for this post is one of the more unusual surviving artifacts dealing with the connections between them, not to mention one that has been challenging to the utmost to decipher and transcribe. It is a copy of a letter written by William W. Temple to the sisters Anita Baldwin McClaughry and Clara Baldwin Stocker, dated 17 October 1913.
William was diligently devoted to his studies at the Inns of Court in London in fall 1875 after earning his law degree at Harvard University when he was abruptly summoned home to Los Angeles as the dire condition of the Temple and Workman bank led his father to seek the young man’s legal assistance.
The younger Temple made it back to the Angel City just in time for a loan from Elias J. “Lucky” Baldwin, the father of McClaughry and Stocker, to have been received in the institution’s capacious vault and to see those monies quickly withdrawn as depositors hurried to close their accounts. When the bank closed on 13 January 1876, William, who was not yet 25 years old, faced a doubly daunting challenge in representing his father and grandfather in mounting litigation that no doubt would have proved difficult to manage for even the most experienced and hardened attorney.
For the next few years, William labored to do what he could, especially for the estate of his grandfather William Workman, for whom he was named, but the reality was that the nature of the loan to Baldwin was ruinous for the Workman and Temple family. Foreclosure took place in 1879 and within two years, all that was essentially left were the homesteads at La Puente and La Merced (Misión Vieja, or Old Mission, in the Whittier Narrows) and some other property that soon ended being sold to keep the families in decent economic conditions for a limited time.
Dispirited and demoralized, not just by the legal issues but by family infighting that was to be expected given the disarray, William left in 1880 to join the Army and, even after mustering out following seven years of service, remained away from this area and his family. He lived in Albuquerque, New Mexico; Phoenix, Arizona; and Mexico City for more than twenty years, only returning to Los Angeles as a revolution was ready to engulf our southern neighbor and William’s health took a turn for the worse.
While he was away, his brothers Francis and John owned the Workman Homestead of 75 acres, including the Workman House, El Campo Santo Cemetery, outbuildings and vineyards and orchards. While Francis did reasonably well financially, his worsening tuberculosis claimed his life in 1888 when he was just shy of 40 years of age. John had the misfortune of owning the ranch during a period of depression and drought and incurred debts he could not escape, leading to foreclosure of the tract when the 19th century came to a close.
At the Temple Homestead, Antonia Margarita Workman de Temple raised her younger children there, but was in tough economic circumstances until her death early in 1892. With her daughters Lucinda and Margarita married and residing elsewhere, the 50-acre property was left to the brothers Charles and Walter. Leasing parts of the ranch to farmers and winemakers, the siblings managed to get by, though Charles’ personal problems were such that he sold his interest to Walter and moved to Arizona where Lucinda and her husband, Manuel Zuñiga resided.
As for Baldwin, the windfall in terms of many thousands of acres of land held by Temple and Workman was always in his sights when he made the loan to the doomed bank. Even when he experienced financial difficulties over the years, he held on to most of the property, the value of most of which remained in its agricultural uses, principally farming field crops. Among those areas considered of least economic benefit were the chaparral-covered Montebello and Baldwin hills, as well as portions of the Puente Hills, which were also part of his domain.
Baldwin’s death in 1909 led to some intense speculation about the value of his greater Los Angeles area holdings, which had already increased heavily in value in no small measure to the diligent efforts and devotion of Hiram A. Unruh, who began working for his boss in 1879 as a private secretary, but grew to be the primary administrator of the estate, and was chief executor after the capitalist died.
Not surprisingly, almost immediately afterward, lawsuits were filed left and right, including by a woman who claimed to be a daughter born out of wedlock and members of the Temple family, who, after nearly three decades, pressed claims that the arrangements made by Baldwin for their former substantial landholdings were invalid.
In his letter, which, as the details here show, is extremely challenging to decipher, with sections defying attempts even given no small amount of experience in reading handwritten documents of many kinds, William basically threw himself and his siblings at the mercy of the Baldwin heirs. He began with a formal statement that, “I beg to address you identical duplicate letters, which explain themselves” and followed by informing the sisters that, “I have deferred directly addressing you for over a year under the hope & belief that Mr. Unruh & Judge [Bradner W.] Lee [Unruh’s counsel during the estate administration process] might have been able under their promises to us to have made a favorable proposition of our Case to you.”
William continued that, “in a short personal and friendly interview with Mr. Unruh yesterday morning at Arcadia, he tells me he has done nothing, has not hope of doing anything, that you are so hemmed in and upset by bummers [?], fakers, blackmailers and other scheming undesirables feeling about for ready cash that he looks upon our case as hopeless and has thrown up his hands.”
Temple followed that, “we however do not desire to be classed in the above category, have a meritorious case, and while we have at this late day no recourse at law or in equity, yet under the facts & circumstances of our case, you are in good faith and conscience bound to give us your support and kindly consideration.” He then told the heirs that, “it is not my purpose to take up too much of your valuable time, and I desire to state our case as briefly as possible.”
What followed was a simple explication of the circumstances involving the Temple and Workman bank loan—it should be noted here that Clara Stocker was born in 1847 and Anita McClaughry in 1876 (just after the loan was made), an age difference even larger than that of William’s oldest and youngest siblings, Thomas and Charles, who were 26 years apart in age.
Notably, William went on to state that, “desiring to protect the old people & the minors” in his family, he entered into an “agreement with your father” by which Baldwin would “give us the land and homes at La Puente & La Merced with 50 acres on each.” Whatever the nature of this supposed deal was, be it oral or in writing, Temple continued that, “in this your father failed completely to carry out his promises and these places were secured eventually after much trouble and expense by our people.”
The next portion of this remarkable letter concerned a lawsuit that was brought by Temple’s siblings against the Baldwin estate, though, in 1910, shortly after the capitalist’s death, several were filed by lawyer Charles S. McKelvey, one of which involved “one Jenkins,” as William put it, and who was William W. Jenkins, a colorful and controversial character who has been featured in this blog previously.
While the suits to try and get financial compensation for the interests of the Temple children in the lands that passed to Baldwin after the loan foreclosure were unsuccessful, William noted that each of the siblings was given $400 as some sort of compensation and, he added, “it was at a meeting at Judge Lee’s office at this time that they offered to use their further efforts in our behalf.” This appears to have reverted back to the comment at the beginning of the missive about Unruh’s statement that he was unable to help more than the issuance of those modest sums.
Temple then informed the Baldwin heirs of the status of himself and his five siblings, giving names, marital status, how many children each had and generally representing that almost all were in poverty, though Walter “has a small [land]holding at the Old Mission,” and suffered from poor health. Two, Lucinda and Charles, were in the copper mining town of Clifton, Arizona, and others were in Los Angeles, including Maggie, who, William hastened to add, “has a worthless debauched husband.” As for himself, William indicated that he was in bad health and incapable of practice his profession as a lawyer, while apparently attributing some of his problems to the stresses of representing the family more than thirty years before.
After these plainspoken appraisals of the Temple children, William exhorted McClaughry and Stocker that,
We take it that inasmuch as you have secured our vast possessions through a most severe deal made by your father with us that was much as he has completely failed to carry out his promise concerning homesteads which have cost us much trouble & expenses, that inasmuch as our vast possessions have accrued to your wealth & happiness, [and] inasmuch as you are worth 30,000,000 dollars & we nothing, we hope and believe that when you have completely considered our case, you will not place us in the list of blackmailers and [others who’d sued the estate for frivolous reasons], but, that responding to the higher and better instincts of your nature you will generously and properly come to our aid and make us happy and tranquil the balance of our days.
He concluded this striking piece of correspondence by informing the Baldwin heirs that he could be reached through Walter because William was leaving the next morning for Arizona to visit Lucinda, her husband Manuel Zuñiga and Charles. It would be better, he continued, to call Walter, who could also meet in person and provide additional information, if needed, because “he represents me & whatever he may do, will be agreeable to me.”
While William stated at the outset that he’d waited more than a year to reach out to the sisters, there was an obvious reason why he contacted them when he did. Namely, after four years, Unruh, with Lee as his legal representative, finally concluded the complex and time-consuming task of administering Baldwin’s estate, with the settlement taking place at the end of April and for which Judge James C. Rives lavished praise on the two men for their faithful devotion to the estate, including their work in about doubling its value to some $25 million, most of it going to McClaughry and Stocker.
Two months later, McClaughry filed for divorce, claiming that her husband, Hull, who she married in 1900 and with whom she had a daughter and a son, was emotionally abusive and who she accused of denying her access to the children. Press accounts of the filing detailed allegations of the behavior of Hull McClaughry, including bitter fights at San Francisco’s Palace and St. Francis hotels, the hiring of private detectives and more.
A final accounting was presented to the court in late July including a distribution of nearly $15 million of what was adjusted to be a $27 million estate—notably, for all of their work, Unruh and Lee seemed to have been paid about $180,000 each, handsome sums for most people, but a pittance compared to what their clients received thanks to their substantial efforts.
What seems, however, to have prompted William’s timing with the letter was the fact that, on 2 September, Unruh appeared before Judge Rives to be formally discharged of his duties, with the Los Angeles Times of the following day remarking that,
When Unruh took charge of the property, it was supposed that Baldwin died bankrupt. By wise administration and because of the rise of land values [during yet another of the region’s booms], Unruh was able to turn over an estate valued at about $36 million.
As noted here before, Unruh continued representing the estate for the heirs and, in 1916, while in a car for business, suffered a heart attack and died. William’s letter, it seems, had no effect and there is no record of any further communications regarding claims, legal or moral, by the Temple siblings.
When, however, William mentioned that Walter had “a small holding” in Old Mission, what he didn’t add was that the property, comprising 60 acres, formerly was owned by their father, F.P.F., was lost to Baldwin in the foreclosure and then was acquired by Walter in fall 1912, even though he lacked the cash to buy it outright immediately. Clearly, Unruh made the deal for purposes that were somehow related to the estate issues mentioned above.
What was likely unknown was that, sitting below that tract, were large pools of crude oil, indications of which were discovered by Walter’s nine-year-old son, Thomas, in April 1914. The Baldwin heirs, though, owned the rest of the Montebello Hills and they were the first to drill, with a test well by Standard Oil Company of California successfully yielding its black gold late in 1916.
A few months later, and only a short distance from that spot, Standard located its first well on the Temple lease and that came into production at the end of June 1917, inaugurating an astounding change of fortune for Walter, his wife Laura González (who he dated when they were teenagers thirty years before and she worked at the Workman Homestead for his brother Francis) and their four children.
William, though he was aware of the possibility of oil on the tract and offered counsel to his brother as a lease was being explored, did not live to see that first well brought in as he died just the prior month. In October 1918, Charles Temple died, and this left three siblings, John, Lucinda and Maggie, as well as a sister-in-law, Jeannette Friend de Temple (widow of the eldest Temple child, Thomas) for whom Walter cared over the years thanks to his oil fortune.
Anita Baldwin, as she dispensed with her former married name, and Clara Stocker also reaped millions from oil found at the Baldwin Hills, where F.P.F. Temple and William Workman had an ownership stake and which was included in the bank loan and foreclosure, and became even more fabulously wealthy than they were before.
Hard as it is to read and transcribe, this missive from William W. Temple is a fascinating document related to a complicated story covering decades in the late 19th and early 20th centuries involving the staggering ups-and-downs of the Temple family.
I wonder if there are any records indicating what legal actions William Temple pursued after his family defaulted on the loan with Baldwin. Aside from arguing over-collateralization or claiming that the beneficiary was unconscious when signing the loan agreement, I am unsure what other legal grounds could have been used to assert his legal expertise. Given that the average land price in the San Gabriel area ranged from $10 to $50 per acre during 1870s, I am uncertain about the exact number of acres involved in their contract, nor do I know whether an official land value assessment was conducted. Even if the land amounted to around 20,000 acres, it would not have been easy to claim the loan of $340,000 was over-collateralized.
Hi Larry, as we understand it, William’s role in the latter part of the 1870s was primarily to represent his grandfather’s estate. What looks to have transpired later, including after Baldwin’s death were efforts by the Temple children to claim that their inherited interests were not properly and legally addressed in any of the transactions that followed Baldwin’s foreclosure, as well as claims that promised payments were not made. William addressed this is his letter, but whether there was legal merit is the question. There may be surviving case files and more research would need to be done, for sure, but what has been seen so far is highly convoluted and complex, not to mention over a lengthy period of time. Thanks for your continued interest!
It’s quite disheartening to read this letter from William Temple, written in 1913 when he was already over 60 years old. Rather than presenting any legal expertise or grounds, the letter reads more like a plea for mercy. I believe he must have been urged and pressured by his family to draft it as a last resort.
Ironically, this was around the time William’s younger brother, Walter Temple, moved to Montebello – just one year before his big oil discovery. Four years later, the first oil well on his land began production, and that same year, William Temple passed away.
As mentioned in one of Paul’s earlier posts, William had assisted Walter with land transactions concerning water rights, so he must have been fully aware of Walter’s oil discovery and its potential. With this in mind, I imagine William found some comfort in his final years, seeing the silver lining finally appear through his brother’s success.
Hi Larry, this letter is one of many artifacts in the Homestead’s collection that reflect the dramatic ups and downs of the Workman and Temple family and, hopefully, the tangible emotions in this and other pieces of correspondence, almost all donated by descendants, helped us to better understand and appreciate the remarkable stories that make up the history of the family and this site.