by Paul R. Spitzzeri
As millions of Americans rush to file their tax returns by midnight tonight and millions more have filed six-month extensions on their filings, we return to a look on the tax assessments of the Workman and Temple family, having looked at the periods of the 1850s and 1860s, during the years 1872-1875 and how this better helps us understand their wealth and their assets.
Those prior posts showed that there was a dramatic increase in both for the family, mirroring what was happening for many people across the country and the United States continued its remarkable rise as an economic power. There were some difficult periods during those earlier years, including the end of the California Gold Rush, the Depression of 1857, and floods and droughts that ravaged our region during the Civil War.
It is worth noting that, because of the war, the federal government implemented the nation’s first income tax, starting in 1861 and with revisions the following year and in 1864, as revenue had to be raised for the Union Army’s fight against the Confederates (the Confederate States of America had its own tax structure, as well). The war’s end did not mean the immediate cessation of the tax, of course, as there were still massive expenses to be covered, but the Revenue Act of 1864 was rescinded eight years later. It would be another four decades, that is, in 1913, before a permanent income tax was brought back.
The nadir of greater Los Angeles’ economy was in 1865 as the region, reeling from the damage done by those natural disasters and compounded by infestations of pests and the virulent spread of smallpox, finally emerged from this set of destructive elements. The conclusion of the war also led to immigration to the western part of the country, so that, by 1868, our area entered into its first significant and sustained period of growth, or a boom, that continued through the middle of the Seventies.
Even as the nation entered another economic downturn in 1873 that led to the “Long Depression” spanning the rest of the decade, California and Los Angeles seemed immune as the Golden State was actually boosted financially by a silver boom in Virginia City, Nevada, that hyper-infused stock speculation in San Francisco. In the Angel City, the economic climate was also intensely active and, after their first partnership with the brilliant merchant Isaias W. Hellman in the bank of Hellman, Temple and Company, was ended early in 1871 by the young genius, F.P.F. Temple and William Workman continued on with their own namesake institution.
Workman, who was in his seventies, was the typical “silent partner” investing his substantial sums and enjoying having his name attached to the enterprise, but it was his son-in-law, Temple, who was the prime mover in the operations of the bank of Temple and Workman. Temple was easily among the most active of the boomers in the growing little city with a hand in projects involving real estate, railroads, oil and more.
In fact, this led him to move away from day-to-day supervision, despite his title as president, of the bank and to delegate most management functions to head cashier, Henry S. Ledyard, a native of Canada and former cashier of a San Francisco financial institution, who gave every appearance of being more than well-equipped to handle the increasing business of Temple and Workman as it seemed to prosper during the boom.
Research done thirty years ago at the Seaver Center for Western History Research at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County included looking at microfilm (!) of tax assessment books deposited with the Museum. At the time (1995), the films went from 1853 to 1875, with some gaps, as the prior posts here have observed, but that happened to work out well for our purposes because that year 1875 marked the staggering financial turning point for the Workman and Temple family and the region, as we’ll note at the end of this post.
The film was, not surprisingly, of varying quality in terms of visibility based on the original condition of the assessment books, not to mention how often the tapes were used, their storage conditions and the functionality of the reading machines. So, the images here will reflect that significant variation, though the information captured was basically all readable.
The years 1870 and 1871 were also missing, though we have a glimpse into the economic situation for Temple and Workman, thanks to a list of “Los Angeles Incomes” published by the Los Angeles News of 11 June 1870. Towering over the Angel City’s financial landscape were its two banks: Hellman, Temple and Company at a nice, clean $100,000 and James A. Hayward and Company (which included ex-governor John G. Downey as a true “silent partner”) at $65,000. In fact, the former California chief executive was the only individual in five figures, coming in at $13,540.
Second on the list was Temple at just under $9,000, with Hellman at third at $6,200. In the next few positions were several figures at or around $5,000, including jeweler and watchmaker Charles Ducommun; wine merchant Henry Kohler and Workman, whose income was pegged at the round figure of $5,000. Other family members on the list included Temple’s son Thomas ($1,151), who would soon be a cashier at the family bank, but then was a partner in an iron and tin ware company, and Workman’s nephews, Elijah ($2,935) and William Henry ($2,477), proprietors of a successful saddlery and harness business.
The 9 August 1872 edition of the Star offered a list of the “Rich Men of Los Angeles County,” this based on the assessment rolls, with the Los Angeles and San Bernardino Land Association, the trustee company managing the vast estate of the late Abel Stearns, far above and beyond all others at well over a half million dollars. At around $290,000 was the Los Angeles and San Pedro Railroad, the sole local line since it was completed three years before, but which, after a November subsidy election related to the entry of the Southern Pacific in the region, was soon sold to that state railroad power. Another company, the sheep-holding firm of Irvine, Flint and Company, came in third at just a tad over $184,000.
As for the individuals on the list, Temple topped all others at $152,538, about $15,000 higher than former governor Pío Pico, with the only others in six figures being Downey ($108,205), San Francisco business figure of note James Lick, who owned Santa Catalina Island (just $9 under Downey) and another City by the Bay denizen, Michael Reese, who owned Rancho Los Alamitos, formerly owned by Stearns, and other properties ($107,274.) The two banks in town also held substantial assets with Hellman and Downey’s Farmers’ and Merchants’ Bank at $110,000 and Temple and Workman at $75,013. William Workman was at $68,696, placing him at eighth among individuals, just below his long-time friend, Benjamin D. Wilson.
Unfortunately, the assessment books for the 1872-1873 tax year do not provide much detail about what property was involved for county residents. For Temple, he owned 3,704 acres with the land valued at just under $35,000 and improvements, basically structures, at $5,700. His property in Los Angeles was pegged at just shy of $50,000 and the improvements not far under $49,000. His personal possessions were valued at $13,335 so the total was as listed in the Star article above and his tax was $2,875.
Workman owned almost six times as much land at just over 19,000 acres and the value was over $52,000—much of it was hill property worth considerably less than valley lands, and his improvements were $10,000. He owned only $750 of city property with improvements of $700—this clearly being a house somewhere in Los Angeles, but the location is not known. His personal property was much less than half of that of his son-in-law, being valued at $5,210, so, for his estate, the tax was under half of Temple’s at $1,305.22.
The impact of the boom’s rapid expansion was certainly and readily expressed in the assessments for 1873-1874 and we can get much more detail, to boot. Temple held not far under 6,000 acres, more than 2/3 an increase over the prior year, including 1,181 acres at Rancho La Merced, where the family resided; 1,107 acres, or a quarter, of the Potrero Grande to the north; and 70%, or 1,416 acres of Potrero de Felipe Lugo to the northeast. Values at each were divided into two types, based on their quality and each had improvements, with the home place at La Merced given as $5,000.
Temple also owned large tracts of 2,160 acres in what is now the Monterey Park and Alhambra areas, in what was formerly public land, and these, too, had two sets of values with the total coming to $4,150. In Los Angeles, there were six assessed tracts, including two vaguely referred ones for $2,100, with the more substantial holdings being the Temple Block at $32,500 and improvements at $40,000; a lot across Spring Street to the west and valued at $14,400 with improvements at $8,500; and lots on Spring between 1st and 2nd streets with no structures and on Main also between those numbered thoroughfares and having a small structure, the land values being $2.354 and $5,760, respectively. Beyond this city property owned by him solely, Temple and Ozro W. Childs owned lots and acreage on Fort Street (now Broadway) and 10 acres on the west of San Pedro Street and two blocks and nine lots on the Mott Tract on Bunker Hill, all valued at nearly $3,200 with improvements on all but the Mott section and at $1,300.
For his personal property, Temple had a buggy, carriage and a pair of wagons, with a harness, a watch, firearms some poultry and machinery of minor value of not far over $500 in all. Furniture was pegged at $300 and farming utensils comprised another $100. The major amounts came with livestock, including about 95 horses, including a purebred stallion and lesser quality animals totaling under $1,500. Calves, cattle and cows totaled 100 animals valued at $1,400, while Temple had 400 “common goats” at a dollar each, 300 improved goats at double that amount, 800 lambs at the same rate, and 1,750 graded sheep worth $2 each and the same number of improved ones at $3 a head—the total assessment was more than $10,000 and shows how much goats and sheep, much of them raised on part of Workman’s Rancho La Puente near the mill in what is today Avocado Heights, became prominent after the floods and droughts decimated cattle herds.
For his part, Workman had much less property to list, though he had the 18,304 acres of Rancho La Puente (some 6,000 acres had been given or sold, including the Workman Mill property to his daughter, Margarita Temple, a tract to his son, Joseph, and a small holding to ranch foreman Frederick Lambourne, as well as 5,000 acres bought by Peregine Fitzhugh and only recently acquired by Robert S. Baker and Edward F. Beale). There were four separate valuations of property types on the sprawling holding totaling some $50,500, while the Workman House, barn, mill and fenced area around the residence came in at $10,000. The city property was apparently sold as not appearing on this assessment.
Personal property included $350 in furniture, a couple of wagons and harness at $200, farming equipment at $300, and the material for making wine in the structures just south of the Workman House with the pipes (barrels), still and tubs valued at $710. The major transition from cattle to agriculture was reflected in the fact that there were 30 “Spanish” horses and 150 colts and mares at $1,800, not quite two dozen mules at $630, 35 hogs at $3 each, and 150 cattle at $10 per head. In the peak of the ranching period, Workman had up to 5,000 cattle, but now had probably about the number in acreage of wheat and other field crops, mostly north of the house.
Confusingly, there are separate listings just for 1874, suggesting that a change was made in the assessment period and the information is largely the same, though, for Temple, the firearms are excluded as are some farm animals, including the 1,750 improved sheep, which perhaps were sold. The valuation of the cattle and cows was also lower because 70 stock cattle were reduced from $12 to $10 a head. The total property value was more than $10,000 higher and the tax nearly $300 more, so one wonders if this was part of a general reassessment.
For Workman, his Rancho La Puente acreage was reduced by 100 because this was deeded as easements to the Southern Pacific as it built its line east from Los Angeles along Valley Boulevard and completed a depot on the ranch and inaugurated service to that point by spring 1874. Moreover, instead of four types of land and values for each, as in 1873-1874, the newer list included five types, but the total assessment leapt by over $20,000 to over $76,000. A buggy was added, but the farming utensils and furniture valuation dropped, while there were 50 more cattle included and a slight increase in the number of hogs. In the end, Workman’s assessment went up by $22,000 and his tax by over $500, settling just shy of $2,000.
The 1875 assessment appears to be partial for Temple, as nothing could be located of his Los Angeles property, the value of which would certainly have increased, so what was left was his county holdings, with the ranchos La Merced, Potrero Grande and Felipe Lugo remaining the same, but his lands to the northeast increasing by 75% to 3,500 acres and assessed at $11,500. There was also a significant increase in his sheep flock from about 2,500 to above 6,000, while he also more than doubled his cattle herd to 150, though the number of cows and calves dropped and his inventory of horses remained stable (!) In all, his personal property value went up by about $2,700.
Workman’s listing included another change in divisions of the type of land within his 18,204 acres of Rancho La Puente, but there was another dramatic rise in values of more than 40% to $108,000 and one wonders if the continuing push of the railroad through the ranch affected this. Otherwise, the totals for his livestock and farm animals, as well as personal property and the materials for winemaking remained the same. The total property value jumped by more than $30,000 and his tax leapt by close to $500.
Then came the bust. The stock speculation of those Virginia City silver mines was simply unsustainable and one investor who got out at the right time was Elias J. Baldwin of San Francisco, who earned his sobriquet of “Lucky” because he cashed out to the tune of millions of dollars before the bottom dropped out of the market. A crash took place in late August 1875 and the panic followed the telegraph wires to Los Angeles, where jittery depositors descended upon the banks, including Temple and Workman, which could not, however, pay what was demanded.
Rather than enter into bankruptcy, the owners decided to seek loans, but found money as tight as could be in San Francisco due to the downturn. Finally, after two months, Baldwin agreed to lend $210,000 to the institution, but “on rather hard terms,” as Temple explained to Workman from San Francisco was the deal was sealed. But, so, too, was the fate of the two men, even after Baldwin infused another $130,000 to the bank that, upon reopening, was bleeding the borrowed money such that the gaping wound of depositor confidence could not be stanched.
The result was the closure of Temple and Workman on 13 January 1876, followed by an assignment that quickly released an inventory showing just how poorly run the bank was under Ledyard’s management, though, again, Temple was its chief executive officer. The owners, at the peak of Los Angeles’ monied class, were essentially ruined by the disaster, with Workman taking his life in mid-May and Temple, who took office in March as county treasurer, despite the debacle, suffering a series of strokes due to the stress and which ended his life four years later.
The Star of 15 April 1877 published a list of the 20 largest tax payers in Los Angeles County, with the list topped by the mighty Southern Pacific at $775,000 and the Los Angeles and San Bernardino Land Association at half that amount. At over a quarter million dollars was Irvine (shown as “Irwin”), Flint and Company and then came Temple, through his assignees Daniel Freeman and Edward F. Spence. Arcadia Bandini Stearns Baker, the only woman on the list, Jotham Bixby’s company, Baldwin and Downey were among others at the top ranks and, at 12th, was Workman, through the same assignees for Temple. The only other Latinos, Pico and Manuel Dominguez, along with Hellman, Freeman, Wilson, and Childs were among those who completed the list.
When Baldwin foreclosed on his loan in 1879, he assumed ownership of many thousands of acres formerly held by Temple and Workman throughout greater Los Angeles, though mainly in the San Gabriel Valley. The family did acquire from him small homesteads of 75 acres (Workman) and 50 acres (Temple) at La Puente and La Merced, though the former was lost by another foreclosure in 1899. Walter Temple, who inherited the La Merced property with a brother Charles, came into an astounding stroke of good fortune after he sold that land to acquire property lost by his father in the bank foreclosure and oil was found there in 1917.
This allowed him to buy the Workman Homestead, on which he spent a great deal of money on improvements, including the renovation of the Workman House, the rebuilding of El Campo Santo Cemetery and the lavish La Casa Nueva. His heavy investments in oil and real estate projects during another boom in the Roaring Twenties, however, led to sizable debt and, with the onset of the Great Depression, everything was lost not far beyond a half-century after his father and grandfather’s financial collapse.
We’ll look to share tax assessment information for Walter Temple in future editions of this series next year.