by Paul R. Spitzzeri
The colony concept of establishing townsites in greater Los Angeles was a popular one during the last half of the 19th century, beginning with German-Americans who founded the “Mother Colony” at Anaheim in 1857, apparently the first such example in California. This was followed by such examples as the Southern California Colony Association at Riverside in 1870, the Indiana Colony at Pasadena (1873), and the Los Angeles Immigration and Land Cooperative Association and its projects at Artesia (1874) and Pomona (1875).
These varied in their forms and operations, but, generally, colonies often had a strong focus on agriculture, so that, with Anaheim it was vineyards to raise grapes for making wine, while Riverside became known for its highly productive orange groves, as did the San Gabriel Valley. Another aspect concerned pooling resources for infrastructure, such as roads and, vitally, water acquisition and distribution. Enticing immigrants of a certain ethnicity (the Germans at Anaheim) or from a given place (Indiana) could also be part of the endeavor.
During the region’s first boom, in the late 1860s and through the mid-1870s, colonies were part of a broader growth in the creation of townsites, with other examples being Compton (1865-1870), Santa Ana and Orange (1869), Centinela (modern Inglewood area) and San Fernando in 1874 and Santa Monica in 1875. When the bust came, it was part of a Long Depression across the United States that lasted the remainder of the decade and economic improvement did not come until the early Eighties with the second boom, far greater than its predecessor, bolstered by a direct transcontinental railroad line, built by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe, reaching the area in late 1885.
Pomona, for example, underwent a reorganization so that the Pomona Land and Water Company was incorporated in 1882 and revived what was essentially a long-dormant project. To the east, in San Bernardino County, the Chaffey brothers, George, Jr. (1848-1932) and William B. (1856-1926), purchased property for their Etiwanda tract. They then acquired land, secured water from places like San Antonio Canyon leading to Mt. San Antonio (Baldy) and then established a colony named after their home province in Canada. The Los Angeles Times, less than a year old but soon to become a dominant media force in the region, of 29 October 1882 remarked:
A new colony plat is being laid out five miles this side [west] of Cucamonga. A force of men are now at work surveying, laying out a town site and tracts of larger and smaller proportions , preparatory to putting the tract upon the market. The new enterprise is to be called Ontario, and the Chaffee [sic] Brothers, of Etiwanda, are the principal movers in the scheme.
On 4 December, the first birthday of the Times, the Ontario Fruit Grower, the name obviously signifying a crucial component of the new project, published its first weekly issue. A main feature article concerned the securing by the Chaffeys of water from the San Antonio Water Company, the president of which was attorney, former District Court judge and real estate developer Robert M. Widney, per terms of a 29 November contract, that would tap supply “from the Cucamonga [San Gabriel] mountains . . . in and through the San Antonio Canyon and creek to the extent of one half of all the water in the same.”
The Chaffey brothers handled the promotion and sales of lots at Ontario for the first several months, but it was then decided to found the Ontario Land Company and, on 16 July 1883, the siblings deeded “all the land and water rights and other property at Ontario to the new company,” as explained by the Fruit Grower, which added that “this Company is now the heaviest real estate combination in Southern California excepting perhaps the owners [the Los Angeles and San Bernardino Land Association] of the Stearns Ranchos.”
In addition to the Chaffeys, the officers of the new concern included Widney, who was president of a proposed Chaffey College of Agriculture (he was a founder of the University of Southern California in 1880), Jonathan S. Slauson and John E. Plater. There have been frequent mentions of Slauson and Widney in this blog and both were involved in the Los Angeles County Bank, formerly the Los Angeles County Savings Bank, then housed in the former quarters of the Temple and Workman bank in the Temple Block. In fact, Slauson was its president and Widney a director, when Plater (1839-1926) came to Los Angeles at the beginning of 1883 from Nevada, and took a majority of stock in the bank, replacing Slauson as its chief executive.
A native of Sotterley, Maryland, southeast of Washington, D.C., where he resided for much of his childhood Plater attended Georgetown College (now University) in the nation’s capital, worked as a bookkeeper for an uncle in Baltimore and served with an artillery unit in the Confederate Army during the Civil War. When that nation-rending conflict mercifully came to a close in 1865, Plater headed west and went to Virginia City, Nevada during the boom times of silver mining in the Comstock Lode.
He was a representative of the very powerful Bank of California, headquartered in San Francisco, and then became a banker at the mining towns of Hamilton and Eureka, in the remote regions to the east. As the prospecting at the latter declined, Prater headed for the Angel City and promptly took over the County Bank and plunged into the Ontario project, presumably the institution provided funding for the project (later, Plater was involved in the Burbank subdivision in the San Fernando Valley and a nearby street named for him is now Tuxford Street in the Sun Valley neighborhood of the City of Los Angeles.
The formation of the Ontario Land Company was alluded to in the Fruit Grower of 25 July, in which it was remarked that,
The formation of the Ontario Land Company as noticed last week is a mile stone in the history of the model settlement. The business will be conducted as heretofore by the Chaffey Brothers . . . both of whom are members of the Board of Trustees who have the management of the property for the stock holders.
The business management of this firm is a guarantee of the future and it is needless to say that, when [sic] their management has the hearty endorsement of the other members of the Board. The work as outlined by the Chaffey Brothers will be carried forward to completion by the new company, just the same as though no change had been made.
The prior day’s edition of the Los Angeles Herald reported on the land company’s creation, informing readers that “a company of capitalists have become associated with the Chaffey Brothers in the proprietorship and management of the Ontario Land Company . . . for the purpose of conducting the affairs of that colony.”
A quarter million dollars of stock was to be issued at $100 per share and it was added that “the owners of stock can convert the same into land whenever they so desire to do, by surrendering their certificate at par and 8 per cent interest, receiving land therefor at the schedule price of the Board of Trustees.” The paper concluded with the comment that,
The company consists of strong and experienced men, and puts the colony in a strong and impregnable financial condition that will enable the developments to go forward with thoroughness and rapidity. The success of the colony is now completely assured.
The highlighted artifact from the Museum’s collection for this post is “Certificate of Ownership” number 8 issued to the Chaffey Brothers and comprising 50 shares, or $5,000, with each share “representing one twenty-five hundredth (1-2500) interest in the property.” The document added that the siblings were “entitled to participate in all the profits arising . . . proportionately with the other owners and holders” of these instruments.
The surrender for cash with that interest “in payment for any of the lands . . . at the price at which such lands may be scheduled at date of such sale” was stipulated, with paid dividend amounts deducted. The instrument is dated 7 August 1883 and is signed by George Chaffey, Plater, Slauson and Widney (why William Chaffey was not a signatory is unknown; perhaps he was out of town at the time.)
A couple of days prior to the issuance of the document, the Herald briefly noted that “an excursion from Canada, the former home of the Chaffey Brothers, will leave Kingston on the 17th . . . and will consist of two car loads of immigrants.” This colonization trip was accompanied by an offer that “members of the excursion who purchase twenty acres of land at Ontario will receive a rebate of the price of their ticket here” and the paper approvingly noted that “this is a liberal offer.”
In its number of the 8th, the Fruit Grower published a letter from “O.K.,” which commented that,
Ontario is only seven months old, and one of the liveliest burgs in Southern California. Euclid avenue seven miles in length, two hundred feet in width, macadimized [sic—this was a form of paving] and set out with twenty-eight miles of trees [for the outer edges and the edges of the wide island that originally had a streetcar system]. Noticeable among the many improvements is a drive up the avenue is [are] the telephone system [this was a fairly new device] connecting the depot, hotel, Geo. Chaffey’s residence, and other places in the settlement, beside her eastern sister town Etiwanda.
The writer noted the beauty of the depot, including its splashing fountain and the trees soon to provide the solace of shade for travelers coming in from the deserts to the east, the “imposing and elegant” Ontario Hotel, which was described in detail with fine furniture, carpets, drapes, dining room table cloths and silver settings and rooms indicating that the hostelry was “first-class in every respect,” and mention of improvements, including the orange orchard of Luther M. Holt (also a key figure at Pomona and Riverside) and the 20-acre college grounds. The houses of such families as Gill, Nichols, Story, Sweet, Sykes and Whitaker were also mentioned.
In the issue, there was also the featuring of John B. Tays, an El Paso business figure and former noted Texas Ranger, who was “investing liberally in Ontario property and [who] proposes to build extensively.” Tays was said to be, after acquiring land in town, returning to El Paso to prepare his family for a September return, after which he would construct a fine house. A Petaluma transplant was reportedly doing the same, while “Dr. Ellswood Chaffey is also getting ready to put up a fine residence on Euclid avenue just above the College,” where brick was said to be burned soon for a building.
Elsewhere in the edition, the Fruit Grower pointed out that,
The Ontario Land Company has made no advance in the price of land since the sales first commenced last December, but those who purchased at an early date and got good locations are able to dispose of the same at a good advance, even when no improvements have been made.
It cited the case in which Tays purchased $2,500 for 10 acres, constituting a $500 profit for the original owner, E.A. Hawes, while it was added that “others have decline to sell at similar advances.” Lastly, the paper printed a letter from “Immigrant,” dated the prior day from Los Angeles, whose discourse on happenings in the region began with, “from every source we hear of an immense crowd of visitors who intend on spending the winter [here] with a view to permanent location,” with the expectation that there would around 50,000 such guests.
It was added that, “since the town and colony of Ontario will have thousands of visitors,” it was recommended to advertise to these people what would be entailed in the purchase of 10 or 20 acres. Specifically, it was suggested to play up the fact that such tracts “would raise all the deciduous and citrus fruits, as well as all the varieties of nuts and berries,” while specific crops like alfalfa, millet and potatoes, as well as many vegetables, would draw a profit. As citrus and grapevines were ripening, moreover, beans, melons, potatoes and pumpkins, along with other vegetables, could help pay expenses until those high-value crops were of mature bearing age.
The recommendation was to let prospective buyers know all of the investment costs, expected yields and gross revenues, but the existing pamphlet did not provide enough material for an informed decision, especially as Cucamonga wines had a broad reputation. “Immigrant” mused that “guess the pamphlet was written from a temperance [anti-alcohol] standpoint” and it was implored that advertising in a detailed way should be published in the Fruit Grower (after all, note the journal’s name!) because “not one in a hundred who read your paper ever see the pamphlet.”
The writer continued,
Every available acre of land adapted to agriculture or horticulture is being eagerly sought after in this neighborhood, and since your beautiful country offers such attractions of soil, climate and facilities for development, it must necessarily be soon settled up with thrifty and prosperous people. We were impressed with the character of the soil, when at Ontario and Cucamonga, last winter, and now, that water has been introduced, we know that it cannot be very long until every acre of it must be under cultivation. The scenery of the San Bernardino valley is simply grand and soul inspiring, and the day is not far distant when the population of that lovely valley will be multiplied by thousands.
It was added that “the building boom continues unabated” with building materials on every street as “substantial two-story bricks [buildings] are taking the place of rickety old frames” and a number of downtown Los Angeles thoroughfares (Aliso, Commercial, First, Main and Spring streets) hives of activity such that “if the pedestrians don’t get their heads broken by some of the scaffolding along these streets, we shall be agreeably disappointed.”
One Angel City capitalist cited was,
Banker [Isaias W., long owner of Rancho Cucamonga] Hellman [who] has the building fever as bad as any body. He has erected some fine buildings, and is now bringing his street railroad track up from the lower part of the city on Olive and will switch over to Spring, up Spring to First, down First to Main, and so on out to the new depot [the Arcade, however, was not opened until 1888]. . .
Property has taken another step up in value, along up Temple street, over the prospect of a cable road for a mile up from Temple block, which will, no doubt, be built the coming winter [the Second Street cable line opened in fall 1885 and the Temple Street followed in summer 1886].
Cautioning that “the shiftless appearance of things looks bad in such a prosperous city,” the correspondent offered a variety of ways in which improvements were being conducted before the winter rush. Brick manufacturers were turning out about 100,000 pieces a day, “while the great scarcity of wood . . . has been a great drawback” for timely construction, though relief was expected in about a month.
The Herald of the 25th briefly observed that the Chaffeys home province of Ontario experienced a outflow of 100,000 persons in four years with 70% of those migrants heading to the United States. Who knows how many of those were heading to our Ontario, but the previous day’s issue observed that, a few years prior, a Sacramento paper “condemned the colony system as a failure, though recent reports about property assessments in places like Lompoc and Pasadena, growing by leaps and bounds in under a decade, apparently led the journal to reassess its views, while the Herald added that similar impressive growth was occurring in Anaheim, Cucamonga, Etiwanda, Hermosa, Orange, Pomona, Riverside, Santa Ana and Ontario.
The improved conditions in greater Los Angeles would only become enormous amplified as the Boom of the 1880s arrived and Ontario was one of many existing, as well as new towns, that expanded heavily during that period. This Certificate of Ownership from the Ontario Land Company is an excellent artifact to represent some of the early history of the new town, along with a late 1882 letter from the Chaffeys that is in our collection, and served as something of a precursor for what was yet to come.