by Paul R. Spitzzeri
Pomona, the town on the eastern edge of Los Angeles County, was certainly on edge in November 1891 when aggrieved residents of the area were outraged after Patrick C. Tonner sold interests in property to a relative of Pomona Land and Water Company president, Dr. Benjamin S. Nichols, this portending problems for settlers who assumed they had valid titles to the tracts on which they lived and worked.
After a series of meetings, in which enraged residents demanded that titles be quieted in their favor or that summary execution would meted out on Nichols and Tonner, if not also Lugarda Alvarado de Palomares, from whom those tracts were acquired, the Los Angeles Times of the 9th told readers that Tonner “who is in disgrace” was in the Angel City with a bodyguard after fleeing Pomona in a wagon and “arming themselves to the teeth.”
It was rumored that Nichols tagged along, though that was uncertain. What apparently was not was that “the midnight arrival [Tonner] was covered with dust, and gave evidence of having made a long and hard journey [of 30 miles] over dirty roads.” Moreover, Tonner evidently remained sequestered in lodgings and was not to be seen on the streets of Los Angeles.
Under the headline of “Pomona’s Sensation,” with a subheading of “Indignation of the Citizens Still Running High” and others referring to a swindle, “more threats of mob law,” and the fact that policing was increased three-fold, the Los Angeles Express of the same day remarked,
Pomona seems thoroughly agitated over its land sensation, and unless a compromise favorable to settlers is effected there will be two or three necks that will show red marks around them. Throwing a cloud about the title of land that has been cut up and settled upon is an old game in the west. It has been a fruitful source of obtaining blood money; but occasionally the “workers of the scheme” get hauled up a short turn. The leaders of the citizens’ movement at Pomona declare that the action of P.C. Tonner, Dr. B.S. Nichols and others in covering by deed certain lands lying near the city, is simply a swindling operation and they do not propose to stand it.
The resolutions passed by the assemblage were reprinted, as was remarked upon in part four of this post, and the paper remarked that “it now seems evident that Tonner and Nichols will have to leave Pomona,” while the lawyer “has found it convenient to spend a good deal of his time in this city.” As for Nichols, an effort was afoot to have residents obtain water from a rival company and thereby put financial pressure on him and his firm.
A report from that day remarked that “the excitement . . . has somewhat abated . . . but resentment and anger still run high,” with “knots and crowds of men on the streets and corners, still vigorously discussing Nichols and Tonner’s ac[tion]s, and denouncing them as subjects fit for tar and feathers and mob attack.” Others carried weapons, while it was noted that those deploring violence but pursuing concrete results “have their force.” Still, it was added that “a fiery and popular leader could easily lead a large attacking party.”
The paper observed that,
Never have any men been so thoroughly hated, denounced, cursed and threatened as Nichols and Tonner are here. They are talked over in every home, store, shop and marked in Pomona valley, while deepest sympathy goes out from every heart for the poor men and women who property is claimed by Nichols and Tonner, and who are forced by endless litigation and even deprivation of all their property, to pay large and arbitrary sums.
Moreover, it was asserted that “the best people in Pomona are sincerely glad that Nichols and Tonner are not to be found” because otherwise “they would have been most sincerely, and probably fatally injured, at the hands of over 200 angry men.” The city marshal had that triple force of men and “it was feared that outrages by maddened men might take place last night,” but this proved unfounded. Still, it was expressed that “there is no knowing who may draw a pistol and shoot any moment Nichols or Tonner is seen.”
Lastly, the Express informed its readers that “it is found that Nichols and Tonner had extorted over $13,000 before public opinion was aroused” and these accounts, deemed extortionate, “are piteous in the extreme, and some men will be financially ruined by Nichols and Tonner unless they desist.”
The 10 November number of the Los Angeles Herald used “Perturbed Pomona” for its header and it began its coverage by remarking that a reporter, arriving at the dinner hour, found the town quiet, but the anger of previous days “recalled the earlier Pacific coast days, when between sunset and dawn there dangled the bloated bodies which told of rights retained by people’s main.”
An evening gathering at the town’s Opera House filled two-thirds of the auditorium and it was noted that “the spirit of lynch law was predominant, but there was no one to lynch” as “lawyer Tonner was scarce” and Nichols had not been seen for several days, so not even an effigy was sacrificed to communal vengeance. It was learned, moreover, that E.J. Burr, Nichols’ relation in Connecticut to whom Tonner deeded the contested properties, sent a telegram to say that he had no deed in his possession.
As for Señora Palomares, key committee figure John E. Packard reported to the 800 or so persons gathered she told him and others that “Mr. Tonner came to her for a deed of the unsold portion of the San José ranch” while adding “I do not claim nor have I ever claimed any land that has once been sold and paid for.” Her other comments convinced the movement ringleaders that “Tonner’s claim to the title of the ‘clouded’ lands was obtained by misrepresentation.”
Packard then asked the assemblage, “what do you think of Mr. Tonner?” to which the reply was “hisses and cry of ‘rats’,” and he presented resolutions exonerating Palomares and this led to a resounding cheer for the crowd. Her son, Francisco, Jr., appeared and was paraphrased as telling the gathering that “there had never been a desire on his mother’s part to do injustice to anyone” and that this applied to him, as well, as manager of the Palomares estate; for this “he was loudly applauded.”
Frank L. Palmer of the land and water company spoke and produced the Burr telegram, which added that the Connecticut man was a trustee, but otherwise had no knowledge of the controversy. Another telegram gave Allen Nichols, son of Benjamin, power of attorney for Burr “to deed back the clouded lands to P.C. Tonner,” though Palmer’s trip to Los Angeles to locate the lawyer was unsuccessful. While this was thought to be an attempt to extricate Benjamin Nichols from the matter, Fred J. Smith (who owned the Homestead from 1899 to 1903) reminded his hearers otherwise.
Still, it was made clear at the confab that “Tonner was the instigator in the whole business,” but there remained “a lingering belief that Dr. Nichols was his earnest and active coadjutor.” The meeting concluded with “the united feeling that land sharks and robbers of homes would find Pomona a sulphurous place.” Otherwise, it was reported that a friend of Tonner saw him in Los Angeles and, while he was still dusty from his flight from Pomona, he was “feeling ‘gay’ in consequence of an ardent, liberal use of stimulants,” meaning, presumably, alcohol.
The friend was told, in paraphrased terms, that “it was necessary for the Pomona Land and Water Company to borrow $100,000” and because of required bonds and to get clear title, Tonner “had to give a quit claim deed to the banking company which was negoiating the loan and of which E. Burr was the head.” It was added that,
Tonner had said he had made his will, leaving everything to his wife, except $250, which he wanted spent for liquor for the boys to drink at his funeral, and that he wished no service held, but simply desired his grave marked by an American flag.
The source remarked, however, that Tonner had no intention of going out without taking someone with him, while “a henchman” told the Herald that Tonner was actually in Pomona when the last confab was held, but “dared not enter” the Opera House.
It was mentioned that “Tonner had been drunk for the week past” and told people when he was in a Pomona tavern that if he was lynched, he left a check for that $250 amount for “whisky at his wake.” More tellingly, he added “he had so fixed the deeds of the disputed property that upon his death it would cost his opponents more to settle them than it would be if he were alive.
W.E. Ward, who used to run the Pomona Times, told the paper that “Tonner told him some time since that he had made several thousand dollars out of his little game” and that if his opponents had a problem with his scheme, they could seek redress at court. He concluded that, if there were legal issues with what he’d done, that would be revealed, but if his claim was legitimate, “it would only cost them more to settle.” In an editorial in that edition, the Herald commented that “the whole issue is centered on Tonner” but what his next move was “a subject of considerable speculation.”
With a title of “Tonner’s Peril,” the Los Angeles Times, also of the 10th, clearly articulated that “the crime of P.C. Tonner . . . has come to a sudden halt, and in a manner which it is evident he did not anticipate.” It was added that it was “amazing” that he could carry on with his scheme for almost two years in “a community which has had a criminal wrong imposed upon it.”
The paper devoted some ink to a history of the land use of the lands involved, including the 1837 Rancho San José grant, a partition from 1846 involving the Arenas, Palomares and Vejar portions of the ranch, an 1880 suit to overturn that division, and a decision by the California Supreme Court four years later that the partition was illegal because of a lack of a survey of the lands involved.
But, Moses L. Wicks and Cyrus Mills bought some of the ranch land and worked on quit claims with Palomares and Vejar family members, during which time Lugarda Alvarado de Palomares obtained her interests. Wicks sold out to Mills, who was a principal of the Pomona Land and Water Company, and, when Mills died, his wife Susan’s relative, Nichols, came in to run the firm. The account observed that, “as Tonner had been the attorney of that corporation through the dusky part of its history, he was retained from necessity, and an appreciation of his peculiar abilities.”
Señora Palomares occasionally sold tracts inherited from her late husband with Tonner acting as her attorney and her unfamiliarity with English, aside from health problems and stress from managing the estate, led her to move to a San Diego County ranch. When she left, she “placed her property, as she supposed, in the hands of Tonner as trustee, and a contract was written up by which Tonner was given power “to dispose of any interests she might have in odd pieces left about Pomona.” It was then asserted that,
Soon after the execution of this paper, Tonner began exacting trifling amounts from owners of lands to remove the cloud which the conveyance from Mrs. Palomares put upon some 2000 acres contained in the deed. To some of the owners he gave quit-claims upon payment of notary fees [to him]. Later on he began increasing the prices. Many of the land-owners were in debt, and some tried to borrow money on the farms they had improved, while others tried to sell, but to their surprise, found a cloud upon their titles, and had to call on Tonner for an explanation and release.
It was further propounded that “the owners paid the blackmail,” but Tonner grew bolder and increased the amount charged, but, when property holders went to Mrs. Palomares, she, with her lack of facility in English, referred them to her attorney. “This emboldened the wretch,” the argument went, “and he would put on the cinch tighter,” while, it was added, “he has boasted that he was an infidel, and being strongly wedded to the use of rum, he would ask the applicant for mercy whether he were a Christian and a Prohibitionist.” If this were both true, “the robber put up the tribute” under the claim that Señora Palomares approved of the arrangement.
The paper, adding that the lands conveyed by Tonner to Burr were water bearing and, therefore, of great value, published verbatim the questions posed to Palomares at a meeting and to which she replied through interpretation by her son from her Spanish. Notably, when the word “fraud” was used, she professed to not fully understand its meaning while adding that land previously sold by her or in her name should not have to be sold again.
She also told the interviewers that she was not aware of any deeds that were not for previously sold properties, saying that Tonner approached her for one that only concerned unsold lands. She cited previous financial issues related to the ranch, including debts settled by selling tracts within it, while adding that her move to San Diego County was in that context, but she added that she “did not like to have her name, the name of the Palomares [family], connected with anything at all in regard to this matter.
With regard to lands transferred to Tonner, Señora Palomares insisted that “she did not intend to transfer what was not hers” and professed to have no claim on lands purchased by and deeded to others. Francisco remarked to the interviewers that “his mother would do all in her power to aid the citizens in settling the matter, and was very unwilling that anyone should suffer any wrongs on her account.” His comments to the meeting were deemed “the most manly and touching speech that was ever listened to in than [that] Operahouse” and “its simple eloquence” indicated “how deeply his mother and himself felt the great wrong which had been done them,”
And then he said she asked him to come there and say to her neighbors and friends that she had not been an intentional party to the effort to defraud them, and that she pledged herself to do all in her power to bring to an early adjustment the whole question. Then for himself the young man promised to do all in his power to aid his mother in her just purpose.
After the account noted that there would be an attempt to bring the matter to the county grand jury, it concluded,
The scheme of Tonner has failed, and tonight he is in hiding, and Dr. Nichols is not visible anywhere, but the people are rejoiced to know that in a few days the fraudulent cloud will be lifted from their lands, and the beautiful valley will be as inviting on account of the perfection of its land titles as it is on account of its rich soil, delightful climate and sturdy, honest citizens.
In an editorial, the Times commented that “the full blaze of luminous publicity” illuminated the Pomona land controversy, while adding that Palomares were fully exonerated, even as it was abundantly clear that Nichols and Tonner plotted to perpetrate a fraud on those involved, with the scheme also referred to as “the crime of Tonner.”
The paper asserted that Tonner took advantage of his client and “abused his trust, victimized land purchasers, and converted to his own use large sums of money extorted” by his insistence that “their titles required quieting by him” for the requisite fees. It concluded unequivocally that, “the wrong done here is flagrant and far-reaching” and that “here is a crying case for the action of the grand jury.”
With this, we’ll stop for now and return with a sixth part, so check back in with us for that.