by Paul R. Spitzzeri
James Tejani’s new book, A Machine to Move Heaven and Earth, which he discussed at a recent presentation at the Homestead, is one of the latest detailed examinations of a fundamental aspect of the development of greater Los Angeles, involving the remarkable man-made creation of the Port of Los Angeles in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Core to its transformation was the “Free Harbor Fight,” which pitted supporters of the harbor at San Pedro and Wilmington against advocates for Santa Monica being the site for federal appropriations for the predominant port in the region. Notably, while the Southern Pacific controlled rail lines to the former since 1872, when a subsidy election approved by voters for the company bringing its main north-south California line through Los Angeles, but also gave it control of the local Los Angeles and San Pedro Railroad, it pushed for Santa Monica because it also owned the former Los Angeles and Independence Railroad and a wharf that replaced that building by the earlier company.
Prior to that great drama, however, the federal focus had been on the San Pedro Bay harbor, including the earliest allocations of funds in the early 1870s for a breakwater and dredging that markedly improved conditions at a place that was so filled with silt and debris that steamers and other craft had to anchor off-shore and “lighters” used to transport passengers and goods to and from the shore.
The “Long Depression” lasting from 1873 into the early 1880s brought a halt to the idea of further funding, but with a new period of growth, including a local Boom of the Eighties that peaked in 1887 and 1888, during which William H. Workman was mayor of Los Angeles, stirred more work toward greater improvements. Additional surveys were undertaken, leading up to the Free Harbor Fight, and the featured artifact from the Homestead’s holdings for this post is a “Letter from the Secretary of War” regarding the “Survey of San Pedro Bay.”
On 28 February 1888, Secretary William C. Endicott (the Department of War later became the Department of Defense) transmitted documents to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives, in the first session of the 50th Congress and he stated that “he has the honor to transmit . . . a letter of the 25th instant from the Chief of Engineers, upon the survey of San Pedro Bay, Cal., and a copy of the report on the preliminary examination of the same.”
This was done in compliance with the River and Harbor Act, passed by Congress on 5 August 1886, and Brig. Gen. James C. Duane, who built pontoon bridges for the Union Army during the Civil War and was the chief of engineers of the Army Corps of Engineers from October 1886 until his retirement at the end of June 1888, also expressed
I have the honor to submit herewith a copy of a report to this office from Maj. W.H.H. Benyaurd, Corps of Engineers, giving the results of a survey of San Pedro Bay, near the entrance to Wilmington Harbor, Cal, with a view to establishing an outer harbor for the protection of deep-draught vessels, made under his directions to comply with the requirements of the river and harbor act of August 5, 1886, together with a copy of the report on the preliminary examination of the same required by said act.
William Henry Harrison Benyaurd also fought during the Civil War and was breveted and received the Medal of Honor for his actions at the Battle of Five Forks in Virginia as the war came to a close in April 1865. He worked extensive on the Mississippi River and was appointed a lieutenant colonel not long after this report.
Another key figure here was Col. George H. Mendell, who had extensive experience with the Army Corps since 1852, exemplary service for the Union during war, and, in California from 1867 for fortifications of Alcatraz and other Bay area installations and as a consulting engineer to San Francisco and state water commissioners during the 1870s. Since 1884, Mendell was the supervising engineer of a district including the Golden State, Oregon and Washington Territory.
Mendell’s report of a “Preliminary Examination of San Pedro Bay, California,” submitted on 8 November 1886 from San Francisco, began by observing that “there is no harbor for deep-sea vessels on the California coast, except that of San Francisco . . . and that of San Diego,” but these were about 600 miles apart. Yet, he continued, “there are several roadsteads in the interval, which afford protection to vessels from winds coming from a particular direction, but none which covers all winds.” Of these, “the bay of San Pedro is the best known . . . and is the only one which has now or ever had had foreign commerce.”
The colonel noted that “a considerable fleet of deep-water ships is employed in foreign commerce” there, mostly importing coal, while there was “an export which is small and casual—wheat.” Reiterating San Pedro Bay’s desirability, Mendell added that is was “the point where the Southern Pacific system of railroads, coming from the east [meaning the southwest and southern sections of the country], first touches the Pacific Ocean” and that it “derives commercial advantage, as compared with San Francisco, from the fact that it gives much the shorter and easier line of overland transportation to the waters of the Atlantic, or Asiatic commerce.”
As noted above, it was pointed out that “the loading and discharging of deep-water ships are now effected through the use of lighters, which carry the freight between the shore and the anchorage of the vessels, a distance of 2 or 3 miles.” This was considered a considerable inconvenience through lost costs and time, but, “if the ships were enabled to lie alongside of piers and discharge their freight in the usual way, the saving in cost would be considerable,” but current conditions precluded a significant partaking in commerce with Asia.
To date, San Francisco was much more successful at garnering that trade, but with a northern route through Seattle nearly at hand, so competition was to increase, including existing service at San Diego, “which is also the terminus of a railroad system, connecting with the east by means of the Atchison and Topeka [Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe, which actually connected to greater Los Angeles late in 1885 and directly to the Angel City in May 1887].” The port in the southern city was “capacious and favorable in point of shelter and depth for any amount of commerce that can be imagined in the future.”
To this, Mendell added that
It may be a question whether or not it is advisable to expend a considerable sum in building an artificial harbor at San Pedro, when there is now a fine natural harbor at San Diego, 90 miles distant.
Information was lacking as to whether rail connections were better at one rather than the other, but it was noted that “San Pedro has now, however, a much larger foreign trade than San Diego” and “it remains to recall that Wilmington Harbor, which debouches into the bay of San Pedro, has been much improved by the United States.” On the other hand, “it is a small estuary and can never be made a harbor for deep-water ships,” because no more than 20 feet could be found at high water.
The fact, however, that Los Angeles, toward the end of the great boom, was “the second city in importance of California,” after San Francisco and “the center of a highly developed area of horticultural and viticultural industry” meant that this and “the direct rail connection with eastern territory have given rise to a considerable commerce in the little harbor at Wilmington.”
Acknowledging that his analysis was “meager,” Mendell felt that “the question of the improvement of San Pedro Bay is connected with the problem of competition for the Asiatic trade” and that “as an element of perhaps national importance . . . the question appears to me t be deserving of careful examination and study, and I recommend the place as ‘worthy of improvement.'”
Benyaurd’s report, dated 13 February from San Francisco, noted that a survey of Newport Harbor in what, the following year, became Orange County, was completed to the crew was sent to San Pedro, working from the end of March until nearly the middle of June in 1887. It was intended to conduct a broader survey than was actually undertaken, but “the amount allotted for the work was inadequate to cover all the ground,” though it was allowed that “the work accomplished affords sufficient information to enable us to indicate the position of a breakwater that would afford shelter to anchorage-ground and to give an estimate of the cost of the structure.”
Before inner harbor improvements were begun, depth was one a foot upon the bar at the entrance at mean low water, but this was to expand to 11 feet with “the works projected . . . and it is expected that a depth of 16 feet at mean low water will ultimately be gained.” This would permit some vessels to enter and unload directly at wharves, but larger craft could not with that 18-20 foot level mentioned above being elusive, so they would continue to use lighters to transfer goods and passengers.
While Santa Catalina Island was a bulwark against large waves from the south, there was still exposure “from the east around by south to the west” as well as from “southwest and southeast gales that prevail during the winter months.” Consequently, Benyaurd continued, “vessels are frequent compelled during the prevalence of southerly gales to leave their anchorage and seek shelter under the lea of the islands that lie off the coast.” Wreckage at the west end of the bay was evidence that the worst damage came from southeastern storms, though “there is otherwise a heavy swell that sets in from the southwest, so, “for the purpose of affording a protected anchorage ground . . . it is proposed to construct a breakwater.”
This would start from a location near Point Fermin and extend 3,300 feet “which carries it beyond a line projected from the anchorage ground to the westerly end of Catalina Island, and gives protection to seas from the southwest.” A 1,000-foot gap, covered by Catalina’s southerly protection, was then followed by a western arm of some 2,500 feet and “located as to extend beyond lines drawn from the anchorage ground to both Catalina’s western extremity and to Point San Juan Capistrano (Dana Point). This would provide protection from southeasterly swells between the two points.
Benyaurd added that further study might allow for slight changes in the position of the breakwater’s two components, but vessels could use the gap or go around the west end to enter and exit the port, depending on favorable winds, while openings would provide for the free movement of currents “and tend to prevent any deposition of material within the sheltered area.” The breakwater was to be built by dropping stones, with areas under 18 feet below low water and the interior of quarried material, while the slopes and top to be comprised of larger blocks and “judging from previous operations abundance of stone of fair quality can be obtained at Catalina Island. Costs were to be about $1.6 million for the west section and not far under $2 million for the east and, with a standard 15% contingency, the total would be a bit over $4 million.
Construction of the breakwater, of course, would mean “the construction of wharves along the westerly shore of the bay, at which deep-draught vessels can lie with safety, and discharge their cargoes free from the expense not entailed by lighterage.” Domestic and foreign shipping was growing “and it would undoubtedly increase still more rapidly as the country is developed and additional facilities afford for transportation to interior points, were there any certainty that the protection to the roadstead would be inaugurated.” It might appear that the cost would not be justified given current commerce levels, but, with time, given the expected time for completion of the breakwater, due to usual rates of federal appropriations, “the commerce might fully warrant the expenditure.”
Also on 13 February, Menell added a brief commentary, stating, “this project appears to be well conceived” given the coverage from Catalina and the two breakwater portions, so that “the whole arc of exposure is covered.” Having two entrances meant that one would be “always convenient for arrival and departure, whatever be the direction of the wind,” and the engineer concluded by remarking that “with large sizes of stone it is probable that the sectional area may properly be reduced, as storms and heavy waves do not here occur so frequently nor so violently as is the case on the northern coast.”
A table provided commerce statistics for Wilmington Harbor for the year 1871 (when the first boom, though much smaller than the current one, was underway in the region) with 160 incoming and outgoing steam and 65 sailing vessels, with more than 25,000 tons of imports and about 9,500 of exports, along with almost 11 million board feet of lumber brought in. Foreign vessels numbered just a few steam ones and over 60 sailing ships. Tonnage was about even for imports and exports at around 78-79,000 tons.
General merchandise imported comprised 841 tons, while 1,332 tons of wheat were exported, though coal imports were almost 130,000 tons. Domestic vessels were about 350 steam and 460 sailing, with tonnage being 465,000 imported and 458,000 exported. General merchandise involved 45,000 tons brought in and 17,400 sent out and north of 163 million board feet of lumber. For the year 1887, revenue collected at the port was just north of $110,000.
Preliminary as this brief report was, it is a very important federal document considering what was to come later with the resolution of the Free Harbor Fight in favor of this port for government appropriations and the enormous transformation that followed in succeeding decades. The City of Los Angeles, through a shoestring addition, annexed San Pedro and Wilmington a little more than two decades after this document was published and the harbor became the Port of Los Angeles which is such a major economic element of our region.
In hindsight, the federal appropriation in the late 19th century provided crucial support that contributed to the economic and strategic success of what later became the Port of Los Angeles. In contrast, the current California high-speed rail project faces ongoing uncertainty, with the looming threat of losing federal funding and persistent questions about its practicality and purpose.
When comparing the success of the Los Angeles Port to the challenges of high-speed rail, what came to mind was the idea of developing a high-speed cargo rail to accelerate freight movement from the West Coast to the East – reducing transit time from the current one week to just 1-2 days. It seems more practical and appealing than the current project to Las Vegas; however, based on the current cost ratio of 100 billion for 500 miles, at least $500 billion is needed for a 2,500-mile rail line. Then, the biggest challenges will be how to justify such an expense and how to ensure it won’t become even a larger financial burden, subject to political maneuvering across multiple states. Moreover, cheaper and more effective alternatives, such as autonomous electric cargo trucks, could achieve similar efficiency gains without the exorbitant cost.