by Paul R. Spitzzeri
We had some 70 visitors this afternoon at the Homestead for an event commemorating the 150th anniversary of Boyle Heights, the Los Angeles neighborhood established in 1875 by Isaias W. Hellman, John Lazzarovich and William H. Workman, this latter the nephew of Homestead founders William Workman and Nicolasa Urioste. Talks on the community’s history were presented by me and Rudy Martinez, along with remarks by Boyle Heights Community Partners President Vivian Escalante and Boyle Heights Historical Society President Alex Tenorio, as well as Andrew Workman, a direct descendant of William H. Workman.
It was a fun day with lots of diverse elements of those 150 years shared along with displays and information discussed by those organizations and we are working on finalizing a second celebration on the last day of August, which we hope to get decided upon soon and then look forward to offering to the public. Meanwhile, as a wrap-up of today’s event, we’ll continue our coverage of the Hollenbeck Home for the Aged, now Hollenbeck Palms, a retirement community that will mark its 130th anniversary next year.
A recent multi-part post reviewed some of the planning and development, culminating in the grand opening on 6 September 1896, of the institution, founded by Elizabeth Hatsfeldt Hollenbeck in memory of her late husband, John, and, given that Women’s History Month is coming to a close, it is certainly a double pleasure to focus this post on the Museum’s copy of the “Souvenir Manual of Hollenbeck Home For The Aged,” issued by its Board of Managers a few years later.
In listing officials, a mistake was made with the Board of Managers, as Mrs. Hollenbeck was listed twice, and her compatriots included Adele Young, wife of the Rev. William Stewart Young, who wrote a 1935 biography of the institution; Margaret Hanna, whose husband, Rev. Daniel W. Hanna, was the superintendent; and Dr. Anne W. Nixon, who was also one of the two staff physicians, along with Dr. Francis E. Corbin. Also mentioned was the matron, Theresa H. Abbott.
The publication remarked that,
The Hollenbeck Home was built by Mrs. Elizabeth Hollenbeck, [as] a memorial monument to her husband, Mr. J.E. Hollenbeck. It is the materialization of the unmatured plans which he and she had dreamed of in his lifetime.
The location was identified as “the Boyle Heights bluffs [originally Paredon Blanco], overlooking the city of Los Angeles, Cal.,” while to the west is Hollenbeck Park, the land of which was donated by Elizabeth and William H. Workman, who resided about a block or so north. The Home sat on 13 1/2 acres and “include the Home place now occupied by Mrs. Hollenbeck as her residence,” this being an Italianate dwelling completed in late 1876, just after Elizabeth and John settled in Boyle Heights.
The publication continued that “the Home, of Mission [Revival] architecture, is constructed of brick, plastered over with cement.” The cost was $60,000, with furnishings adding another $10,000, while maintenance costs after the third year of operations were determined to be just over $10,000 annually, or some $850 monthly.
The purpose statement was stated as “to offer to worthy aged people, residents of Southern California, who are left without means of support, a comfortable home for their declining years.” As for that grand opening, it was noted that the date was the “eleventh anniversary of the burial of Mr. Hollenbeck,” while it was added that “in the presence of a large concourse of people the building was dedicated to the work for which it was intended—to be thoroughly Christian, but not sectarian in its character.”
Under the heading of “Historical,” some statistical information was then provided, starting with the record of 46 residents admitted the first year, a dozen men and 34 women, with two members passing away and “these were the first to be laid away in the beautiful grounds in the Evergreen Cemetery, provided by the founder of the Home.” This meant that those burial plots were paid for by Elizabeth.
By the end of the third year (it is not known if the reckoning was by calendar or fiscal year), the residential population grew to 55, with a baker’s dozen of males and 42 women. It was remarked that the average age was 72, with the oldest being a man who celebrated his 90th birthday there. Three residents died during the year with the average age of them being 75. Because the first death took place on 28 July 1898, that last Thursday of that month was designated as memorial day with “the graves to be decorated during the day, [and] Memorial exercises to be held in the evening.”
While the facility had a chapel, it was on the third floor, the highest in the structure, “but as there is no elevator as yet, the dining hall,” on the first level, “has been used for public services.” In 1908, a chapel dedicated to the Hollenbeck’s only child, John, Jr., who died as a toddler a half-century prior, was built as a stand-alone house of worship. A “preaching service” was conducted each Sunday at 3:30 by ministers “who have most generously volunteered their services.” Some three-dozen officiants were listed “who have so kindly served the past year, and to whom the Home hereby expresses its thanks.”
A prayer service was given each Thursday nigh, led by the superintendent and chaplain, Rev. Hanna, who was praised for having “given to the Home an unfailing devotion, not alone of time and strength, but of heart and conscience, and who, by his counsel, kindly ministrations and cheerful tact has won the confidence of all.” On alternating Mondays, “social gatherings, with literary and musical exercises by the members of the Home,” were offered.
Beyond this, it was remarked, “kind friends furnish many pleasing entertainments during the year—music, recitations, stereopticon views [dual images that give a 3-D effect when seen through a special viewer]—much to the enjoyment of the members, thus breaking up the monotony of the Home life.” Drs. Corbin and Nixon were also thanked “for their constantly kind and thoughtful attention.”
The remainder of the publication concerned the 15 by-laws and the 19 house rules. The first of the former stated that no one would be admitted to residency who had the financial ability to provide for themselves, while the second stipulated that,
No person deranged in mind or afflicted with any contagious or infectious disease, or any disease considered to be incurable, or if from physical or mental condition the applicant is found objectionable, such applicant will not be received.
Applicants had to be at least 60 years of age and been, for at least three years, a resident of one of the seven southern California counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Ventura). Applications were only accepted in person and only on Tuesday afternoons. The form included space for “a full and accurate statement of all money or property, real or personal, owned,” and “any deception or lack of frankness” was grounds for rejection of the application or dismissal after admission, while a doctor’s certificate concerning the health of the person was to be appended.
Additionally, applicants were required to pay an application fee of $300 as well as to “convey to Mrs. Elizabeth Hollenbeck, or to such person or committee as the Board of Trustees may direct, in trust, however, for the benefit of the Home,” all the property declared on the application. After observing that all those admitted to residency were to “receive board and lodging . . . for life,” it was declared that the new resident provide “suitable and sufficient clothing for at least one year,” with the Home handling those items thereafter, if needed and “of such character and in such quantities” as decided by the managers or matron.
The managers could dismiss any resident with cause and retain proceeds from any property remitted to the facility at “an amount sufficient to pay the Home four dollars per week while such person remained in the Home and enjoyed the benefits thereof,” with any surplus to be remanded “to such discharged inmate,” this latter word used for resident. The same amount was to be retained and the residual returned after a member left the house permanently or for at least two weeks within the first year without consent of the managers. Anyone leaving after more than a year’s residence forfeited all the money and property brought with them.
Also of significance was that,
The persistent disregard of rules, or repeated acts of insubordination on the part of a member of the household, whereby the peace and happiness of the Home is disturbed, shall subject the offender to dismissal.
Members who were ill were to be cared for by Corbin and Nixon, but could, on their own dime, bring in outside doctors. Under the assumption that “occupation of mind and body is a requisite to health and happiness,” residents were to manage their rooms and “render such other service as they can for the good of the Home and the comfort of those who may be less able than themselves.” Religious services were by regulations established by the managers, while visitors could be given tours on Tuesdays and board meetings held on those afternoons from 2-5. No resident could expect any expenses to be charged to the Home when they were absent from it.
As for the house rules, the role of the matron was defined in terms of supervision and maintaining order and adherence to the rules, while it was added that “she shall be kind to all alike without partiality” and provide for residents’ needs in terms of food and supplies along with the “thoroughly clean and neat condition” of the facility. In turn, residents were to treat her “with deference and respect” and there was to be no interference in her or her assistants’ duties, with any complaints taken to the managers.
Again, all residents were expected to contribute to “the general welfare” with management-assigned tasks and these to take precedence over personal matters. When leaving their rooms and then the Home, they were to leave their keys with the matron and provide information as to their whereabouts “in order that no uneasiness may be felt” and in case of accident or illness that took place while away from the institution. Cooking and washing were not to be done in rooms or bathrooms, but in the facility’s spaces for these purposes, while unidentified articles, or more than a dozen of them submitted for cleaning, were to be returned not laundered.
Residents were reminded that,
Intoxicating drinks, opiates or strong stimulants will not be allowed, except by the order of a competent physician.
When it came to meals, residents were to be punctual, unless otherwise excused, and, strikingly, “all are expected to remain seated at the table until the signal is given the Matron, or her assistant, to arise,” this giving a new meaning to the commonly used term of “inmate.” Members were forbidden from going into the kitchen or supply rooms unless allowed by the matron and “they must not talk to, nor interfere with the employes [sic] in any way.” On visiting days, they were to be at the home and to leave their room doors open, unless excused.
The electricity and gas were not be on when absent or after going to bed at night. It was also stipulated that members were not to visit other residents without invitation, “excepting a friendly call on strangers,” this apparently so “that Members of the Household may have full control of their own time.” Also of note:
It is desirable that the Family shall refrain from the discussion of politics, religion or other exciting subjects.
Residents could tour guests through the institution provided they were mindful of the privacy of their fellow inmates, but they were “not to invite anyone to a meal, or to say over night in the Home,” unless one of the doctors determined that “a member is so ill as to require constant attention,” in which case an outsider could minister to a member’s need, but without any compensation.
Concerning religious and social services, scripture readings and “the Lord’s Prayer in concern, conducted by the Matron” were given after breakfast and supper, along with the aforementioned prayer and preaching services. Residents were to be present for all of these, unless excused, given that they were non-sectarian observances. Monday evening “social exercises” were such that residents “will endeavor to make all the exercises as pleasant and profitable as possible.”
The Home library’s hours were to be determined by a staff member librarian and damage done to volumes was subject to a three-month ban. When members were very sick or passed away, notice was to be directed to the managers while “the matron shall abide by their directions in all things pertaining to the care of the sick and preparations for the burial of the dead.” All funeral arrangements “occurring from the Home shall be substantially alike,” while friends could handle arrangements on their own and at their expense.
Regarding personal property, a resident could provide a list of items and the names and address of those to be given them, but based on “consideration of the Board of Managers,” though officials “will carry out the wishes of the member as far as may be sanctioned by the Board.” If, at death, these requests were not made in writing, “the Board should make such disposition of the effects as it may deem best.” No one was to take anything from the room of a sick or deceased member.
Lastly, decreed the institution,
No member who has been dismissed, or who has left the Home dissatisfied, may be re-admitted, or allowed to visit the Home under any circumstances.
Much of these stipulations simply are not legal these days at places like Hollenbeck Palms, while some of those that may be now would not be acceptable to many, if not most, people. In the 1890s, however, significant latitude was given, prior to the increase of the regulatory state, to such institutions, under the presumption that the benefactor, like Elizabeth Hollenbeck was bestowing a substantial gift and these rules and regulations considered to be entirely reasonable.