by Paul R. Spitzzeri
We are now moving further into the 1910s with this look at some of the history of Montebello and, having noted that nurseries were a major part of the early years of the emerging burg, it is notable that, with the town getting a boost during the early part of the decade in terms of new business buildings, residences and other elements, women in the community decided to put on a Montebello Flower Show on 17-18 October 1913 at the town’s high school building.
The Whittier News of the 10th asserted that “the committee working for the success” of the event “are the busiest group of ladies in this part of the country. With “talent from Los Angeles, Whittier and from the Montebello district, the paper remarked,
The ladies and their assistant “boosters’ [the gents?] of Montebello are determined to make this show a model which others must strive to equal. No time or work is being spared, and the interest of the Japanese residents of the district has been aroused to a marked degree. The children of the flower land are taking hold of the display with a wonderful interest. They are daily practicing on drills and songs, and the gardeners promise a rich display of cut flowers.
Performing whistlers from the Angel City, a Whittier pianist and a reader from El Monte were joined by as-yet-unannounced entertainers, though one evening was to include locals, including “the drill by the Japanese children of Montebello.” As noted previously in this post, there was a significant population of Japanese residents, including nursery owners and workers, though they were largely left out of media reporting about happenings in the community, this also largely being true for women. The paper ended with the prediction that “the Flower Show promises to be a success from every standpoint.”
The edition of the 14th further discussed the event and commented that “Montebello has the flowers” and that “the Japanese gardeners raise flowers instead of vegetables,” while a panoply of smaller hothouses were to be found in the community. Beyond this, there were a pair of professional nurseries with “large green houses which supply a large part of the Los Angeles market.” This meant that “the culture of flowers is in the very air at Montebello,” with gardens tended by students and who “strive to outdo each other in the production of thoroughbred chrysanthemums.”
Small wonder, then, that the Montebello Chamber of Commerce produced a pamphlet to promote the community and titled it “Go Where The Flowers Go—To Montebello,” with the publication containing “a lot of descriptive matter that affords an idea of what this rapidly growing district is doing.” Importantly, the next paragraph in the brief article from the Los Angeles Express of 3 September that mentioned the booklet added that “a tract of 330 acres of the beautiful foothills of Montebello recently was purchased by a syndicate composed largely of officers of the Union Oil Company for the purposes of creating a high-class residence district.” The idea was to have 10 and 20 acre estates and “it is planned to make this section a second Hollywood.”
This likely referred to Lyman Stewart, the president of Union, and William B. Scott, who was the head of the related Columbia Oil Company. The latter purchased land including the Soto-Sánchez Adobe mentioned in part one of this post and then undertook a major renovation and enlargement of the house. Scott, who had oil interests in the Puente field where William R. Rowland was long active and at Olinda, in modern Brea, joined Rowland and Los Angeles Times publisher Harry Chandler in purchasing the Tres Hermanos Ranch, now owned by the City of Industry and located in and jointly administered by the cities of Chino Hills and Diamond Bar.
Returning the flower show, the second edition was held in April 1915, again by the Montebello Woman’s Club, and it was reported in the Los Angeles Times of the 16th that it “attracted hundreds of enthusiastic visitors. While it was reported that the firm of Howard and Smith, widely known for its nursery, was the main exhibitor, the paper added that “seven Japanese florists contributed a wonderful collection of oriental plants and shrubs that attracted many spectators.”
Later in the year, the News of 4 October commented on an eight-pound radish, reflective of the fact that “the fertility of Southern California soil is proverbial” and “a product of the garden of a Japanese,” name, of course, omitted, “of Montebello.” It was added that “what the Nipponese did to the seed or to the garden before he planted it is unknown, but it must surely have been something fearful [!] and wonderful to have produced such unusual results.” Moreover, the account went on, “the producer insists that a portion of the root was broken off when it was taken out of the ground,” so that it would have been even larger.
With regard to that community, and noting that this month is Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, the Whittier Plymouth Congregational Church opened a Montebello Japanese mission for children, ages three to six, during the summer and the News of 6 August remarked, typically for the period, that “twenty-five almond eyed attendants with minds keenly active and willing to take on American ways and learning,” were its pupils and were conveyed by bus to the school each morning.
Albert R. Rideout, a prominent Whittier avocado grower, was superintendent and Lela Smith the teacher and the article remarked that “the children played games and sang songs” and “refreshments of Japanese and American dainties were served,” along with an address by the pastor, a piano solo and a reading. A look at the work of the kindergarten students was also mentioned as “one of the interesting features of the afternoon.”
What was obvious, however, was that this event only garnered media attention because it was a rather typical Americanization effort undertaken by whites with people of color, even as anti-Japanese sentiment was strong and supported by legislation like the Alien Land Law, which took effect in 1913, and banner land ownership by Japanese residents of California. Several years later, in early February 1921, another rare mention of the Japanese in Montebello came with regard to the wedding of the mission’s pastor, the Rev. Satoru Saijo and Asano Miyata. Another organization mentioned as present for the nuptials was the Newmark Japanese Association, which was only found one other time, in 1920, in local press reports.
Another important issue in Montebello during this period was an effort at incorporation, with the 12 February 1913 edition of the Express reporting that a meeting in the high school auditorium included arguments for and against the proposal and a canvass revealed that “the vote was decidedly in favor.” The Chamber of Commerce was to meet at the hall of the International Order of Odd Fellows fraternal society in the Montebello State Bank building to continue discussion, while the article concluded,
An important phase of the movement developed when it was pointed out that the only way a car line can be extended to Montebello is by incorporating for the purpose of raising a sufficient sum to guarantee the extension.
The 13 December issue of the News commented that “Montebello wants a direct electric railroad from their village to Los Angeles and Whittier” as discussed at another chamber meeting at the Odd Fellows hall, to which Whittier Board of Trade and Commercial Club representatives were invited. On a table was a model of a streetcar with a placard calling for service to begin the next year (though that didn’t happen until later) and “this sentiment brought forth repeated cheers from the boosters.” While it was remarked that negotiations with the Pacific Electric dated back several years, “it was argued that with the weight of the people back of the demand the [Pacific Electric] road would give the matter more consideration.”
Incorporation was raised again early in 1916, with the News of 22 April reporting that
The people of Montebello and Ramona Acres [to the north] have petitioned the County Board of Supervisors to order an election to form a city . . . to be known as the City of Monterey Park. This action was taken yesterday afternoon at a committee meeting of representatives from both cities and is the culmination of a fight to prevent the cities of Pasadena, South Pasadena and Alhambra from establishing a sewer farm in the vicinity of Montebello and Ramona.
Echoing a concern that, seven years later, led to the formation of West Covina over similar plans by its older neighbor, Covina, the piece went on to observe that Alhambra was employing a tactic borrowed from Los Angeles and its recent connection to the Port of Los Angeles communities of San Pedro and Wilmington “by means of a shoestring strip extending” along Garfield Avenue through Ramona Acres and into the Montebello area.
The 26 May issue of the Times followed up by noting that “Ramona Acres and Montebello joined hands across the projected tri-city sewer farm yesterday, voting by an overwhelming majority to incorporate it and themselves in a city . . . under the name of Monterey Park.” Again, the success of the canvass was attributed to “dread of the proposed sewer farm lately sanctioned by the bureau of sanitation of the State Board of health” and “one of the most harmonious elections” was said to have truly “united the voters.”
The new municipality boasted a population of 2,500 and, in the former, the tally was 463-36 in favor, while, at the latter, about 800 of some 1,000 denizens supported the idea—this led to the claim that the outcome was “the greatest majority ever cast in an incorporation election in California.” It was added that the incorporation move was a “half-Nelson hold” over the attempt by the three cities to take the sewer farm matter to court and the account ended with the observation that, because Ramona Acres and Montebello were not contiguous, the Garfield Avenue corridor through the Monterey Hills where the sewer farm site was situated was to be “the great ‘plaza’ of the newborn city.”
The dalliance between the duo, however, was not to last. On 19 August 1920, an election was held and by a tally of 376-6, Montebello separated from Monterey Park and prepared for its own incorporation. The Pasadena Post of the following day commented that,
Permission to withdraw is the fulfillment of a “gentlemen’s agreement” made four years ago when the consolidation of Monterey, Montebello and Ramona Acres was made as a scheme of mutual protection . . . The object of the original consolidation having been accomplished, Montebello, now a town of 3,000 persons, is again set free.
The paper also remarked that the move to stave off the sewer farm was because there was no statute permitting courts to prevent the sewer farm and that, once Monterey Park began operation after the 1916 vote, “an ordinance was passed, prohibiting for all time the depositing of garbage within the corporate limits.”
The Express of 9 October 1920 observed that the denizens of Montebello voted, 401-72, to incorporate “in an overwhelming victory for the city sponsors.” Opposition, however, was strong among the several oil companies that were then operating in town, mainly in the Montebello Hills, including in the lease operated by the powerful Standard Oil Company of California and owned by the Temple family. In fact, Walter P. Temple, whose land was at the northeastern extremity of the new municipality, unsuccessfully sued, as did oil firms, to prevent his holdings from being included, for obvious reasons of oversight, taxation and the like.
Temple, who’d taken possession of the 50-acre family homestead a little to the east, at the southeast corner of today’s Rosemead Boulevard and San Gabriel Boulevad/Durfee Avenue, and took up residence in the Basye Adobe built in 1869 at the southeast corner of San Gabriel and Lincoln Avenue, bought 60 acres formerly owned by his father, F.P.F., until the Temple and Workman bank disaster of the 1870s led to its becoming the property of “Lucky” Baldwin, who loaned the stricken institution nearly $350,000.
As mentioned in the early part of this post, Juan Matias Sánchez, compadre of F.P.F. Temple and William Workman, put up his portion of Rancho La Merced, covering most of Montebello, as collateral for the Baldwin loan, despite his having no involvement in the bank. In 1912, nearly three decades after Sánchez died, William B. Scott bought land that included the Soto-Sánchez Adobe. Though it was reported that the acquisition was for agricultural reasons, followed, apparently, by the subdivision scheme mentioned above, the discovery of oil in “them thar hills” naturally changed the situation and vitally transformed Montebello.
This is a good time to halt and return with a fifth part looking at the remarkable turn of circumstances with onset of petroleum prospecting for Montebello and for people like the Temples, whose staggering change in fortune is one of those “the truth is stranger than fiction” tales. Join us for that!