USA > California > A history of California and an extended history of its southern coast counties, also containing biographies of well-known citizens of the past and present, Volume I > Part 57
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105 | Part 106 | Part 107 | Part 108 | Part 109 | Part 110 | Part 111 | Part 112 | Part 113 | Part 114 | Part 115 | Part 116 | Part 117 | Part 118 | Part 119 | Part 120 | Part 121 | Part 122 | Part 123 | Part 124 | Part 125 | Part 126 | Part 127 | Part 128 | Part 129 | Part 130 | Part 131 | Part 132 | Part 133 | Part 134 | Part 135 | Part 136 | Part 137 | Part 138 | Part 139 | Part 140 | Part 141 | Part 142 | Part 143 | Part 144 | Part 145 | Part 146 | Part 147 | Part 148 | Part 149 | Part 150 | Part 151 | Part 152 | Part 153 | Part 154 | Part 155
The city gained nothing financially by leasing for thirty years. It was receiving from the as- signs of Sansevain $1,500 a year rental on a lease that had but little over six years to run. The longtime lease did not increase this amount. With the increase of population the water franchise was growing more valuable every year. It is difficult at this late day to discover the motive that actuated a majority of the council to force through a proposition that was certainly not the best one offered. The most charitable conclusion is that the water question had become to the councilmen a "bête noir," a bugbear, and they were anxious to dispose of it to the parties who would take it off their hands for the longest time. One of the most active and consistent opponents of the Griffin proposition was Councilman A. A. Boyle, after whom Boyle Heights is named. In the light of our present ex-
342
HISTORICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL RECORD.
perience with the water company his protests seem almost prophetic.
Shortly after obtaining the thirty years' lease, Messrs. Griffin, Beaudry and Lazard transferred it to an incorporation named The Los Angeles City Water Company ; the first trustees of which were J. S. Griffin, P. Beaudry, S. Lazard, J. G. Downey, A. J. King, Eugene Meyer and Charles Lafoon.
Juan Bernard and P. McFadden, the owners of the Dryden franchise, made an attempt to con- tinue the distribution of water. As they could no longer use their reservoir on the plaza they petitioned the city council for a reservoir site on Fort Hill. The City Water Company pe- titioned for a reservoir site in the same place. In a protest to the city council, September 14, 1868, against granting Juan Bernard and others a site for a reservoir on Fort Hill, P. Beaudry, presi- dent of the Los Angeles City Water Company, uses this language: "That the water works of which the undersigned are lessees is the prop- erty of the city and will at the expiration of the term of the present contract revert to the city with the improvements made thereon by the un- dersigned; that any aid extended by the city to private companies tends to reduce the value of property belonging to the city and is a direct blow at her interests."
In the same protest the president of the Los Angeles City Water Company declares that Juan Bernard's company "has no legal or equita- ble rights to or upon said Plaza, but are now trespassers thereon." The City Water Company finally secured the Bernard and McFadden water works, including the brick reservoir on the Plaza. With its rival out of business, the com- pany was not nearly so anxious to build an orna- mental fountain for the city. Two years passed and no fountain played on the Plaza. The third year was passing when, on December 2, 1870, the late Judge Brunson, then attorney for the water company, appeared before the council with certain propositions looking to a settlement, as he styled it, of "the much vexed question of the reservoir and Plaza improvements," to-wit : "The water company will remove the reservoir from the Plaza and convey all its rights in and to the Plaza to the city of Los Angeles; will lay
it off in walks and ornamental grounds; will erect on it an ornamental fountain at a cost not to exceed $1,000, and will surrender to the city all water scrip (about $3,000) now held by the company ; provided said city will reduce the rent paid by the company to the city to $300 per an- num." As the contract required the company to build a fountain, some of the councilmen de- murred to giving up $1,200 for very little return. Then Brunson threatened to bring suit against the city to defend the company's rights. The council alarmed, hastened to compromise on the basis of $400 a ycar, thus surrendering $1,100 a year.
In 1872 P. Beaudry established a water system for supplying the hills with water. Near the crossing of College and Alameda streets, where the Dryden springs were located, he excavated a large basin and with a sixty horse power en- gine running a pump with the capacity of 40,- 000 gallons per hour, forced the water to an ele- vation of 240 feet into two reservoirs located on the hills northeast of the present site of the Sis- ters' hospital. From these it was distributed over the hill section of the city in iron pipes.
The Citizens' Water Company was organized in 1886. It bought out the Beaudry and Rogers systems. The latter was a system which ob- tained water from the seepings of reservoir No. 4. The lease of the water from the Beaudry springs expiring February 1, 1887, the works were taken down and the Citizens' Company ob- tained its water after that date from the river about four miles above the city. This system was purchased by the Los Angeles City Water Company in 1892.
The Canal and Reservoir Company was or- ganized in 1868 with a capital stock of $200,000. Its first officers were George Hansen, president ; J. W. Greensmith, treasurer, and J. J. Warner, secretary. P. Beaudry was one of the largest stockholders. This company contracted with the city to build within three years a dam twenty feet high across the cañon just below where Echo Park is now located and to construct a ditch down the cañon of the Arroyo de Los Reyes to Pearl street, the object of which was to furnish water to the hill portions of the city and supply power for manufacturing. In 1873 a woolen
343
HISTORICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL RECORD.
mill was built on this ditch and was operated for twelve or fifteen years and was then converted into an ice factory. The company received in compensation for the construction of this sys- tem a large body of city land, since known as the canal and reservoir lands.
A CENTURY OF LITIGATION.
Almost from the beginning of the nineteenth century the city at various times has been com- pelled to engage in litigation to preserve her water rights.
The first legal contest over water rights on the Los Angeles river was begun in 1810. The padres of San Fernando had caused a dam to be constructed at Cahuenga, by which the waters of the river were diverted from its channel. The authorities of the pueblo protested, and appoint- ed a committee to investigate. The committee reported that the dam cut off the source of the pueblo's water supply, thereby causing great damage and suffering to the people of the town. The padres denied the allegation, and set up a claim to the water on the plea that the dam had been used by a previous occupant of the land for fourteen years. There were no lawyers in Cali- fornia then, and the contestants fought their legal battle to a finish among themselves. The padres were finally compelled to concede the justice of the pueblo's claim to the waters of the river. They asked and were granted permission to use enough water to irrigate a small tract of land to supply the mission with corn. This was granted with a definite understanding that, should the settlers' water supply at any time run short, the mission should cease to use the river water. The agreement between the contestants was signed March 26, 1810, and was approved by Governor Arrellaga.
Time passes. Spain no longer controls the destinies of California, but the missions, in the language of a protest in the old archives, "still maintain their proud old notions of being the owners of all the natural products of forest and field."
The pueblo had won its suit for possession of the waters of the river under the rule of monarchical Spain, but it must again contend for its right under republican Mexico.
In the proceedings of the most illustrious ayuntamiento of Los Angeles, October 8, 1833, is this entry: "The ayuntamiento of this town finding it absolutely necessary to obtain by all means possible the prosperity of our fellow citi- zens residing in this community, so as to facili- tate the greatest advantages to their interest ; we have been compelled to name an individual witlı sufficient power from this body to defend with all the power of the law the question arising be- tween this corporation and the reverend father, the teacher of the San Fernando Mission, with reference to his claim on the lands called Cahu- enga, where said father has built a house and made other improvements (constructed a dam in the river). Notwithstanding, the lands are known as public lands. To that effect we name citizen José Antonio Carrillo, on whom suffi- cient power is conferred to prosecute, defend and allege according to law before the proper trib- unals the questions between the corporation of this town and the reverend father of the mission of San Fernando. Said Carrillo may refer to this ayuntamiento at any time for all information and documents. Unanimously ordered by this corporation."
Carrillo, who was at that time alcalde of Los Angeles, and also a member of the territorial legislature, although not a practicing lawyer, was well versed in the law and one of the ablest men of California.
He won his case. The reverend father aband- oned his claim to the Cahuenga, conceded the claims of the ayuntamiento and allowed the wat- ers of the river to flow to the pueblo. Two years later the mission of San Fernando was secu- larized. Then contention between the pueblo and the mission fathers over the waters of the river that had existed for more than a generation was ended forever. In every contest the pobladores of the pueblo had won.
The mission property passed into the hands of an agent or commissioner of the government, and he, too, like his predecessors of San Fernando, had to learn that the river waters belonged to the pueblo, or city, as it had now become. In the session of the ayuntamiento of April 7, 1836, the president said "that the party in charge of San Fernando Mission was damming the water of the
344
HISTORICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL RECORD.
river at Cahuenga," as he had been informed by a commission he had appointed to investigate. "The damming of the city's river water was re- ducing the supply in the public reservoir and causing injury to this vicinity." He said that he acquainted the ayuntamiento of these facts, "so that it might take measures to protect the interests of the community." The city attorney and Regidor Lugo were appointed a committee to defend the city's rights.
At the next session "the city attorney, as one of the committee appointed to investigate the damming of one of the branches of the river by the man in charge of the ex-mission of San Fernando, gave as his opinion that there was sufficient water in the 'city's river' to supply the main zanja and the private zanjas ;" but, he said, furthermore, "that the man in charge of San Fernando had promised him in case said dam should break and damage the city reservoir that he (the man) would repair the same at his own expense, and if the supply of water should at any time fall short in the river he would break said dam that he had constructed and allow all the water to flow into the river." Thus we see in the early days of the pueblo the authorities guarded with jealous care the pueblo's water rights. There was no dallying with adverse claimants ; no allowing of cases to go by default ; no jeopardizing the city's rights by criminal de- lay. The old regidores might be "poco tiempo" in some things, but when the city's water rights were in danger they were prompt to act.
Nor did they guard their claim to the waters of the river alone. The royal reglamento gave the pueblo the right to the waters of the springs as well as to the river.
In the city archives is a parallel case to the Crystal Springs controversy. It is the "Aguage de los Abilas," the spring of the Abilas. During the great flood of 1815 the river cut a new chan- nel for itself along the edge of the mesa on the western side of the valley. It left its old channel at the point of the hills and flowed down the valley very nearly on what is now the line of San Fernando and Alameda streets. It subsequently returned to its old channel on the eastern side of its valley. For many years after, along the base of the hills where the San Fernando depot
grounds now are, and below that where the Beaudry waterworks were formerly located, there were springs formed by the' percolation of the water through the old river channel. Along about 1826 or '27, Francisco Abila was allowed to use the waters of the largest of these springs for irri- gation.
In 1833 his widow, Señora Encarnacion Sepul- veda, applied for a land grant and the exclusive possession of this spring on the plea of having had the exclusive use of the spring for a long time. The case was argued in the ayuntamiento, and that august body promptly decided it against her. While its decision is not couched in the legal verbiage of a supreme court decision, it nevertheless abounds in good sense and good law points.
This is the decision: "The illustrious ayun- tamiento decided that the spring in question should be held for the benefit of the public, who would be injured if this spring belonged to a pri- vate individual. Furthermore, this illustrious ayuntamiento is informed that the immediate neighborhood is in need of the water from that spring. In this particular, Capt. Don José Noriega, who granted said Abila the use of this spring, decreed as follows: 'The said water springs are hereby granted to Abila in case the public does not desire to use its waters.'
"This ayuntamiento also takes into considera- tion that when said spring was granted to the late Francisco Abila, the number of residents in this city was not as large as now. Also at that time said Abila possessed a small orchard, which he irrigated with the waters of this spring, but at present he does not possess any lands ; and there is nothing to irrigate on his former place. Señora Encarnacion Sepulveda has no more right to the waters of this spring than any other resident. it being community property. She as well as the rest of the community shall apply to the alcalde for a permit at any time they may need to use the water of said spring."
It was ordered that this decision be published as an ordinance of the city.
During the sixty-six years that Los Angeles was under Spanish and Mexican domination, no cloud was allowed to rest on the water rights of the pueblo or of its successor, the ciudad, but
345
HISTORICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL RECORD.
during the years of American rule clouds have of Los Angeles in 1893 and carried to the su- preme court of the state.
shadowed it, nor have they rolled by. I have space in this only to briefly glance at a few of the legal contests which the city has fought over its water rights of late years.
In 1873 the city of Los Angeles brought suit against Leon Mc L. Baldwin to quiet its title to two irrigation heads of water that said Bald- win and others were appropriating and claiming to own. These heads were taken from the river and used on Los Feliz rancho. The court held that, so far as appears from the evidence, the city is not the owner of the "corpus" of the water of the river. By reason of this decision and failure to prosecute a former action brought against the same parties, the city in 1884 paid $50,000 to buy back these two irrigation heads of water and some other privileges lost by default.
A suit was brought by Anastacio Feliz against the city of Los Angeles for cutting- off the water of the river from the plaintiff's ditch. In this case the court found that ever since the founda- tion of the pueblo in 1781, the pueblo or its suc- cessor, the city, had claimed the exclusive right to use all the waters of the Los Angeles river, and said right had been recognized and allowed by owners of the land at the source and border- ing on said river.
The judge of the lower court (McNealy) granted a perpetual injunction, enjoining the city from depriving the plaintiff Feliz of sufficient river water for irrigation and domestic use. The supreme court set aside the injunction and re- versed the judgment of the lower court. The supreme court, however, held in its decision, that if there was a surplus in the river over and above the needs of the lands situated within the city limits, that surplus might be appropriated by riparian owners above the city, but that the city could not sell water to parties outside of its limits to the detriment of riparian owners above it. This decision was rendered before our mu- nicipal expansion began.
The last important legal battle which the city lias fought to a finish is the Pomeroy-Hooker case, entitled "The City of Los Angeles, respond- ent, vs. A. E. Pomeroy and J. D. Hooker, ap- pellants," decided by the supreme court June, 1899. It was begun in one of the superior courts
It was a suit to condemn a tract of about 315 acres of land lying near the base of the Cahuenga range, and extending along the river nearly two miles in length by half a mile in width.
Being at a point where the Verdugo hills come nearest the Cahuenga range and thus narrow the river valley, the land was needed by the city for headworks. The city and the owners could not agree on the price, the owners asking a high price on account of the percolating waters from the river, which waters they claimed the right to sell. The city began a suit of condemnation and gained it. The defendants appealed from the decree of condemnation and from the order overruling their motion for a new trial. The supreme court, in a lengthy decision, sustained the rulings of the lower court.
When the thirty years' contract with the as- signs of Messrs. Griffin, Beaudry and Lazard ex- pired July 22, 1898, a number of schemes were broached by which the city could get possession of the water works. None of these resulted in anything more than talk and some long-winded resolutions for political effect.
The question of the value of the water com- pany's plant was submitted to arbitration, as provided for in the original contract. The city council chose James C. Kays and the water com- pany Charles T. Healy. After considerable time spent in collecting data and discussing val- ues, these two arbitrators, being unable to agree, chose for the third Col. George H. Mendell. On the 12th of May, 1899, James C. Kays and George H. Mendell made an award fixing the value of the Los Angeles City Water Company's property at $1,183.591.42. From this award Charles T. Healy dissented.
August 23, 1899, an election was held to au- thorize the issuing of city bonds to the amount of $2,090,000 ; $2,000,000 of this amount was to pay the City Water Company for its pipes, reser- voirs and water works and the remainder to be used in the construction of head works, the build- ing of reservoirs, pipe lines, etc. The bond is- sue carried seven to one.
The water system, or rather the pipes, reser- voirs and water works, of the Los Angeles City
346
HISTORICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL RECORD.
Water Company were transferred to the munici- pality on payment of the agreed price. A board of five water commissioners was appointed from among leading business men to manage the water system of the city. A reduction of ten per cent was made in the water rates. The rapid growth of the city for the past five years has made its water system a valuable source of rev- enue. In 1904, three years after the city ac- quired the system, it paid all operating and main- tenance expenses, provided interest and sinking funds for the bonds and for extending the plant. In addition to all these it netted to the city a profit of $640,000.
The securing of the control of its water sys- tem did not put an end to litigation. A number of suits were begun by different land holders living contiguous to the river above the city. These were fought out in the state courts and the city in almost every instance won. One of these cases, brought in the superior court of Los Angeles, Judge Gibbs decided against the ranchers and enjoined one hundred and sixty of them from pumping water from the underflow of the Los Angeles river when the city needed the water. Robert Devine and 240 other prop- erty owners residents along the Los Angeles riv- er for a distance of six to eight miles north of the city, and a mile and a half back from the stream, banded together and brought snit in the federal courts at Los Angeles to test the city's claims. Judge Wellborn decided against them. The case was carried to the supreme court of the United States. On the 14th of May, 1906, that court handed down a decision that the city of Los Angeles controls the waters of the Los Angeles river. By this decision the ranchers are deprived of the right to use the waters of the river except as the city sees fit to grant them that privilege.
THE OWENS RIVER PROJECT.
For a number of years before the lease of the city water system had expired the necessity for a more abundant supply than could possibly be obtained from the Los Angeles river had been discussed. The waters of the other Sonthern California rivers had all been appropriated for
irrigation and it was impossible to obtain water rights in any of them without purchasing all the irrigable land contiguous to these rivers.
Such a course would not only have destroyed highly cultivated districts where land was worth from $500 to $1,000 per acre, but would have deprived many of the minor towns of their water supply. It became necessary to go beyond Southern California for water. For several years past the board of water commissioners had been quietly investigating other sources of water supply than those now accessible to the city.
To Fred Eaton, an ex-city engineer and ex- mayor of Los Angeles, belongs the credit of originating the scheme of bringing water from Owens river to Los Angeles city. This river drains the east side of the Sierra Nevada mount- ains for a distance of 100 miles. While the region through which it passes is a "land of lit- tle rain" the melting snows from Mt. Whitney, Mt. Dana and other high mountain peaks give an abundant supply of water to that river.
The distance from Los Angeles to Owens river is about two hundred miles. The work of bringing a copious supply of pure mountain water that distance through a massive cement conduit across deserts and over mountains will be one of the most notable projects ever under- taken by a city for the purpose of procuring a water system. Eaton procured an option on a number of farms with their irrigating canals con- tiguous to the river. The people of Inyo county, through which the greater portion of the river flows, opposed the scheme, but the owners of the land had an undoubted right to sell it and the water, which was an appurtenance of the land, went with it. In August, 1905, a bond is- sne for $1,500,000 was voted by the people of Los Angeles to make the first payment on land purchased. A bill was introduced into congress and passed the senate and house to give Los An- geles the right of way over government land for conduits and tunnels.
It is estimated that it will involve an expendi- ture of twenty-three million dollars to construct a concrete conduit 210 miles in length with an internal diameter of not less than fifteen feet. The whole scheme is in the incipient stages and it is impossible to predict the outcome.
347
HISTORICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL RECORD.
CHAPTER L. PIONEER CHURCHES OF LOS ANGELES CITY.
(NOTE. The churches of Los Angeles have become so numerous that it is impossible in the limits allowed me to give a history of each. Only the history of the pioneer church organization of each denomination repre- sented in the city is given. It is to be regretted that so many of the churches have failed to preserve their early records. I have failed to find from their archives any clear and connected account of the early history of some of the Protestant churches. The history of the first churches given in this chapter has been compiled mainly from items and notices found in files of the old Los Angeles Star.)
THE FIRST CHURCH.
T HE first church or chapel built in Los Angeles stood at the foot of the hill near what is now the southeast corner of Buena Vista street and Bellevue avenue. It was an adobe structure about 18x24 feet in size, and was completed in 1784. In 1811 the citizens obtained permission to built a new church-the primitive chapel had become too small to ac- comodate the increasing population of the pueblo and its vicinity.
The corner stone of the new church was laid and blessed August 15, 1814, by Father Gil, of the Mission San Gabriel. Just where it was placed is uncertain. It is probable that it was on the eastern side of the old Plaza. In 1818 it was moved to higher ground-its present site. The great flood of 1815, when the waters of the river came up to the lower side of the old Plaza, probably necessitated the change. When the foundation was laid a second time the citizens subscribed 500 cattle. In 1819 the friars of the San Gabriel Mission contributed seven barrels of brandy to the building fund worth $575. This donation, with the previous contribution of cat- tle, was sufficient to raise the walls to the window arches by 1821 .* There it came to a full stop. The Pueblo colonists were poor in purse and chary of exertion. They were more willing to wait than to labor. Indeed, they seem to have performed but little of the labor. The neophytes of San Gabriel and San Luis Rey did the most
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.