by Paul R. Spitzzeri
With the onset of the 1890s and the economy of greater Los Angeles in a downturn following the Boom of the Eighties, many speculators in regional real estate were in dire straits. Patrick C. Tonner, a principal figure in the establishment of Pomona in the mid-1870s continued his involvement in the town when it was revived in the early Eighties and then sought to cash in when the boom took off later in the decade.
Through much of 1891, Tonner frequently sold property, perhaps an indication of financial stress, though he continued his long-standing law practice in town—he also transferred to the city the land on which he developed Ganesha Park, while forming another water company, the Old Settlement, which was in the area, just east of the park, where the Palomares family established their home when receiving the land grant to Rancho San José in 1837—today, the Casa Primera, the family’s first residence stands there as does the nearby Casa Alvarado.
For Pomona’s celebration of Independence Day, Tonner contributed one of his poems, read by a young woman resident, titled “Seventy-Six.” Since we are rapidly approaching the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, some samples of his verse seem appropriate:
But still [the State House in Massachusetts] bell keeps pealing,
And its sounds are dear to me;
It tells me of the glorious past,
And of the yet to be;
It rings and rings of Washington,
And all his glorious deeds,
Of those who sacrificed their lives
Upon the Hill of Breeds . . .
Rings for the time that’s coming,
When from each tower and craig,
From Falkland’s isles to Baffin’s bay [that is, through all of the Americas]
Shall float the starry flag—
That grand, unconquered, glorious flag
The peace doth highly praise,
But once engaged in righteous fight,
Will never compromise.
Despite profuse praise in Pomona for his poetry, Tonner soon got into enormous trouble over lands that he had interest in, with the Los Angeles Herald of 6 November noting, in a Pomona column provided by a correspondent, that “people were much excited here over the report that P.C. Tonner had transferred his claim to a large amount of real estate in this city and vicinity” to which it was added that “he has been the means of clouding many titles and recently a sum of money was subscribed to contest his claim.”
The next day’s issue of the Los Angeles Express put it bluntly, and hearkened back to the times when such extralegal measures were frequently in vogue, in its main headline of “Two Necks In Danger” followed by “Prominent Citizens of Pomona Threatened With Lynching” as it informed readers that,
Excitement in Pomona valley over land troubles has been raised to a feverish pitch, and a no less sensational occurrence than the lynching of a prominent citizen is regarded as a possible outcome of the matter. The trouble arises over disputed title to about 2000 acres of land formerly a part of the Rancho San Jose . . . deep interest is taken in the matter by all residents of the valley, as the cloud upon the titles affected is regarded as prejudicial to the general welfare.
The article continued that “it appears that the Rancho San Jose was originally partitioned by the tenants in the common, and upon its partition the Palomares portion was sold off in small parcels,” including the Old Settlement tract, one controlled by Loop and Meserve (mentioned earlier in this post) and others. It was then remarked that “one of the tenants in common claimed that this portion [partition?] was not a valid one” and a court ruling in their favor meant that confusion arose over ownership rights for settlers on these properties.
In turn, Lugarda Alvarado de Palomares, widow of Francisco, whose parents settled on the San José ranch nearly 65 years prior and who was descended from the prominent family that included her uncle, Juan Bautista, a governor of Mexican California, and her aunt Ygnacia, who was married to Pío Pico, the last chief executive of that period (the Picos are interred in the Walter P. Temple Memorial Mausoleum at El Campo Santo Cemetery at the Homestead), deeded a two-thirds interest in these disputed lands to Tonner.
As an effort was recently undertaken by many of those involved to take the question to court, it was learned that Tonner sold his interest to a nephew of Dr. Benjamin S. Nichols, who has been mentioned in this post as a Pomona Land and Water Company official and who was president in 1891. The deal involved 300 acres on which eight men were named as having holdings on the tract, including Fred J. Smith, who raised oranges on his land, was a realtor and, from 1899 to 1903 owned the Homestead.
The Express continued that,
The people held an indignation meeting . . . at Pomona. A committee was appointed to wait on Mr. Tonner and Dr. Nichols . . . and inform them that if they did not retract their action, or give up title to the land, there would be a summary disposal of the affair. It is said that the two told the committee to “go to hades.”
The prior evening another confab was held at which Smith and others spoke and were said to have “advised a settlement in a harmonious manner if possible; but, if not, to take Tonner and Nichols to the [San Bernardino] county line and give them instructions never to return, on penalty of being hanged.” A committee of 200, which the paper emphasized “including many leading citizens,” were to see the two again to “see if they are willing to make satisfactory arrangements to quiet the titles immediately,” securing the inhabitants claims to ownership, but “if they will not agree to this, to take measures for hanging them.”
The attendees then took up a collection of $30 “to buy ropes for the possible execution” and that some samples were shown at the gathering amid “strong talk of putting it into immediate use.” Nichols was reported to have been the source of undescribed problems in town for some 2 1/2 years and it can only be assumed that there were hard feelings against him for the way in which he ran the Pomona Land and Water Company. It was added that he was out and about the prior day, “some citizens had a rope ready, and he was compelled to seek refuge in the First National Bank.”
While there were assertions that the confab’s orators “advised quiet and peaceable measures, if the ends of justice can be secured thereby,” it was recorded that late the prior evening, a crowd appeared at Nichols’ residence to serenade him with “an adaptation of the John Brown song” with lyrics revised to “we’ll hang Dr. Nichols to a sour apple tree.” Lastly, it was asserted that he “is a man of obstinate disposition,” so the planned gathering for that evening “will probably be one of the most exciting ever held in Pomona.”
The Times of the 8th discussed “A Grave Situation at Pomona” regarding the “deep feeling and great excitement” over what was argued constituted “an attempt on the part of three persons to becloud land titles and blackmail citizens and settlers.” The third person was Señora Palomares and, after the third public meeting, resolutions issued “are most severe in tone and denunciatory in terms” and that the anger of the “aroused assemblage” was universal in refusing to pay any further “blood money” as demands for “quit-claim deeds” were made.
Taking the matter beyond Pomona, the piece continued that,
It is possible that there is undue excitement and apprehension on the part of these citizens, and that the difficulty is exaggerated; but the people most concerned say otherwise, and declare that they are not only fighting for their assailed property rights, but making a contest which concerns other sections and other peoples of Southern California, who are occupying lands partitioned from Spanish [and Mexican-era] grants.
For the “thrifty and enterprising community” of Pomona, it was remarked that “order must be preserved, but public indignation has the right to have vent,” so that the property of “honest settlers” had to rely on the protective properties of “Public Opinion, acting upon and through our courts of law,” rather than summary execution by lynching.
A special account provided to the Herald under the heading of “Excited Pomona” asserted that the prior day contained “more excitement than ever was before felt in this lively town” and that “Mr. Tonner has disappeared,” while Nichols stayed out and was seen by representatives who demanded he appear before the committee of 200, but he refused.
When night came, the town’s opera house “was filled from stage to dome with a solid mass of excited, almost frenzied, humanity” as “the spirit of revenge was abroad” because “a feeling that a dishonest, cruel act towards honest humanity had been committed” and “seemed to animate each man.” Despite the fervent “feeling of outraged injustice,” it was stated that the attendees were “serious, determined, and grim,” but also that “the levelheadedness characteristic of Americans kept at bay the savage desire that those guilty of the act that caused all the feeling should be summarily punished.”
One of the main figures involved reported that, when a delegation went to Nichols’ house, he told them “if we had any demand to make we might as well retire at once.” When asked if he felt that Tonner’s deal with his son-in-law was reasonable, the doctor answered affirmatively and that “it was for the best interests of the general public.” Notably, however:
He was asked if he considered Tonner’s claim good. He replied that at first he thought that, the claim was a swindle, but that lately he had been assured by some attorneys that Tonner might be able to get it sustained by the courts . . . One speaker asked “Who is back of Tonner in this matter?” and a man in the audience replied “Old Nick” [the Devil]. This reference . . . elicited a storm of cheers and laughter.
It was suggested that, as any money collected by Tonner from those occupying these disputed properties was done so by fraud, the funds should be returned, “this was noisily and unanimously passed.” With regard to the resolutions, the substance was that “the community condemn and denounce the conspiracy of Dr. Nichols, B.C. [sic] Tonner and Mrs. Palomares as a base conspiracy against the real owners of the land involved . . . and characterized it as an attempt to levy blackmail.”
A telegram was also dispatched to Nichols’ son-in-law which “recited the trouble which had arisen from the conveyance to him by Tonner, and asked him to have the land conveyed by Tonner’s deed conveyed back to the real owners.” This failing, it was ominously added, “Dr. Nichols’ life would be in jeopardy.” Susan Mills, living in Oakland, was also contacted and asked to use her influence to have Nichols unseated as head of the land and water company.
Despite the intense animation of those involved, it was not believed that violence was at hand and it was remarked that “the objectionable individuals will be protected by the officers of the law if occasion shall demand” so “there appears to be little danger.” John E. Packard, another of the ringleaders, wrote to the editor of the Pomona Progress to claim that Tonner’s “purported interest . . . is entirely theoretical and has no foundation in [legal] equity.” He added that, if the lawyer’s claims had any legitimacy, going to court should have been no issue for him, and concluded that Tonner gave him title to the land he occupied “and pronounced the title good.”
A brief editorial comment by the Herald observed that,
There is great indignation in Pomona, provoked by a serious scheme on the part of P.C. Tonner, a noted lawyer of that place, and Dr. Nichols, president of a land and water company there, to wrest through a legal technicality some three hundred acres of very valuable lands from their owners. The people of Pomona are justly indignant, and the more hot-headed portion of them are threatening lynch law. Wiser counsel, however, will prevail; but Pomona is likely to prove an undesirable place of residence hereafter for some of the principal actors in this unconscionable scheme of spoliation.
The Times, also of the 8th, told readers that “the excitement at Pomona . . . is increasing hourly” with residents working together towards “the stopping forever of this and similar schemes in the San José Valley.” A fifteen-man committee, said to be comprised of “the most public-spirited and respected” denizens of the town met twice and it was added that, while Tonner promised to appear at the Opera House confab, he failed to do so.
A gathering, held in the morning the day prior, included the appointment of a sub-committee tasked to “visit other points in Southern California and endeavor to get the whole people to unite with Pomona in getting rid of these sort of schemes.” In the afternoon, the group reconvened, finding that Tonner left town, and demanded that Nichols “make the proper transfers to clear some of the titles involved.
By 5:30, as committee members conferred with Nichols, the Times reporter noted that citizens were gathered in small groups on the streets around the Pomona Land and Water Company office. With nothing satisfactory coming from the conference, another meeting was held at the Opera House with Packard’s report summarized, but with the addition of parentheticals noting the crowd reaction (groans, hisses and hoots) when Nichols’ replies were read. This included when Nichols insisted “he would gladly use his influence with Tonner and the Connecticut man to induce them to make the price for the settlers as low as possible” and he replied that “the excitement can do no good and both the public and his own feelings have been outraged.”
The paper also reprinted the resolutions with Nichols said to be “party to the infamous transaction which places him beyond the pale of loyal citizenship and loses him the confidence and respect of the public.” He was also damned as “one of the arch conspirators who have attempted to destroy our homes and rob us of our land,” while his scheme with Tonner and Señora Palomares had the effect to “practically bankrupt one-half of our citizens.”
Nichols was exhorted “to absolve himself from all connection with this blackmailing scheme” by getting his nephew to convey to the holders of the contested property the proper quit-claimed deeds, while Palomares and Tonner were advised “to remove the cloud upon our lands” and the land and water company “to cease using the money which we are paying into their treasury for the purpose of stealing our lands.” Lastly, it was,
Resolved that in the feeling which now exists, and which is widespread and deep-seated, unless the tension is removed by Tonner and his associates [note this phrasing], we cannot hold ourselves responsible for the actions of this community.
When Frank L. Palmer of the land and water company protested that the firm “has taken no part in the matter,” three members, including Smith and Packard, rejoined that “Dr. Nichols and his family own almost all the stock of the company and he is responsible.” Packard and Smith were also to go to Los Angeles “and consult with known friends there regarding the land troubles that are liable to grow out of the Mexican grant schemes,” though what this precisely involved was left unexplained.
Under a subheading of “Mob Talk,” the paper reported that, while there were calls for summary executions, the leaders of the movement “frowned down everything of that kind,” but added “the time had not yet arrived for violence.” The evening before, moreover, “a band numbering over 100 armed themselves with tin pans, clubs and various other implements and marched to Dr. Nichols’s house, which is an old adobe building,” this being the aforementioned and still standing Casa Primera.
There, the account continued, “a terrible racket was kicked up, and several windows were smashed,” though, when it was found that the doctor was away, the crowd refrained from entering the dwelling and dispersed. Because Tonner was not at home, no one approached the residence, but “all kinds of threats were made against him” and residents kept an eye out for his possible return. It was added that, of late, he was staying in “a ranch house in the foothills,” presumably meaning at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, though he would come to town in the morning. It was then stated that,
Yesterday he did not show up until 1 o’clock in the afternoon. He was accompanied by a strange man who was fully armed with pistols and rifles. The two drove up to a gunsmith’s, when Tonner took in a lot of ammunition and the two drove hurriedly out of town, and Tonner has not been seen since. It is the opinion of the indignant citizens that he had better remain away.
After briefly observing that there were Pomonans who opined that Nichols and Tonner “will have to take up their residence in some other locality unless they repair the wrongs with which they are charged,” reference was made to “the old story as to Tonner’s acts with a young girl nineteen years ago, when a mob was organized and a rope secured to hang him, was revived on the streets yesterday, and he was roundly abused on all sides.” Lastly, it was reported “Tonner spent a night in the police station of Los Angeles recently.”
With that, we’ll return with part five and get further into this controversy, including more references to alleged unsavory acts from Tonner’s past, so be sure to check back for that.