John Johnson Jr.
How Los Angeles Covered Up the Massacre of 18 Chinese
L.A. Weekly
March 10, 2011
http://www.laweekly.com/2011-03-10/news/how-los-angeles-covered-up-the-massacre-of-18-chinese/
Amateur historian John Johnson Jr. follows the tradition of De Falla by trying desperately to link the police with the massacre. He claims to have discovered “something astonishing and sinister”, but fails to bring any new evidence to light.
To start with, Johnson perpetuates the false inference, created by De Falla, claiming Bildderrain was drinking inside Higby’s when the affray started, “Police officer Jesus Bilderrain was settling into his drink at Higby's saloon on the evening of Oct. 24, 1871, when he heard gunfire.” Bilderrain himself stated during testimony given during People vs Ah Shaw et al, "while talking with Sanchez, at the corner of Higby's, heard shots in the direction of Negro alley; was then on horseback; road off to Negro alley, telling Sanchez to follow me". Bilderrain’s testimony does not confirm he was not drinking, but likewise, there is no testimony or evidence to confirm that he was drinking. I realize this is just an embellishment that romanticizes the old west. But unless one is writing historical fiction, embellishments should be left out.
Johnson borrows another erroneous detail from De Falla when he says, “a teamster” leveled a rifle at Goller. And growled "You dry up, you son of a bitch." During the inquest, one of the participants in the riot was identified because witnesses recognized him as a teamster (Charles Austin), someone who works on the streets, in an occupation that was highly visible. Another participant in the riot was also a teamster (Crenshaw). But there is no testimony of either of these men being at Goller’s. Austin was in fact quoted as saying “ You dry up”, but this occurred at Tomlinson’s Corral, not Goller's shop. The man who threatened John Goller, did say, “You dry up, you son of a bitch”, but he was only described by witnesses as “An American”.
Johnson tells us that, “Of all the Chinese in Los Angeles, Dr. Gene Tong was probably the most eminent and beloved among both his countrymen and Americans. He could have made much more money hanging his shingle in the American part of town. But Tong stayed in the Alley, dispensing both traditional and modern cures from a small shop in the decrepit Coronel Building.” But Gene Tong did in fact have an office in the “American” part of town. He operated a drug store in the house of William Abbot at No. 25 Main street. And as his advertisement stated, “A doctor is constantly in attendance.”
After the assassination attempt on Yo Hing, Johnson claims, “As testament to Hing's influence with whites, Choy's bail was set at a staggering $2,000 — an amount far more than that for men accused of murder.” But according to the Los Angeles Daily Star on October 24, bail for Yo Hing was $500 and the bail for Ah Choy was $1,000: “Ah Choy giving bail in the sum of $1,000 to appear for examination to-day, at 2 o'clock P.M., before Justice Gray, and swearing out a complaint against Yo Hing for assault, with intent to murder, on which Yo was arrested, and bailed in the sum of $500, to appear for examination at the same hour.” This amount was also not out of the ordinary, and actually lower than, or equal to, the defendants who would be tried for the massacre.
Johnson repeats De Falla’s faulty logic that Bilderrain should have pursued the Hong Chow men because a Nin Yung man was wounded: “Then there is Bilderrain's changing story. According to his own account, after he saw Choy wounded in the street, he chased Yuen's band into the Coronel Building. This made little sense, since Choy was working for Yuen's gang. Instead, the officer should have sought out Hing's gang. Why didn't he? Because he likely was working for Hing. It was well known in town that the Chinese companies paid off the local police for favors. As Hing said about L.A. law enforcement, according to newspaper accounts of a later court hearing, "Police likee money." This system of payoffs inevitably led to police officers being openly allied with one Chinese company or another.” The location where the shooting took place was in front of the Beaudry building, which was where Chinese related to the Hong Chow company had businesses. The men running away from this location would logically be the aggressors. De Falla’s argument did not make sense, and neither does Johnson’s. It should also be pointed out, the city was divided into wards, and a pair of officers were assigned to each ward. Negro Alley was in the third ward where Bilderrain and Sanchez were assigned. The comment from Yo Hing about Police liking money is no doubt related to the generous rewards offered by the Chinese companies for runaway prostitutes. Sing Lee offered a $100 reward for Sing Yu on two different occasions. That was enough to buy a horse or a small house. On both of those occasions, it was obvious, members of law enforcement were eager to earn the reward.
Johnson goes on to say, “The likelihood that Bilderrain was doing Hing's bidding is apparent in his comments after the riot. The officer insisted that he had seen Yuen shoot bar owner Robert Thompson, a remarkable feat given that Bilderrain was lying wounded in the street when Thompson was shot by someone in the dark interior of the building.” This is a patently false. Bilderrain never once claimed that he saw Yuen shoot Thompson. In fact, he never claims that he even saw Yuen at all that day. The only people who testified to seeing Sam Yuen were Pedro Badillo, Cyrus Lyons, Adolph Celis, and Estevan Sanchez.
Johnson continues
this theory with, “In the days after the massacre, Hing and Yuen,
both of whom survived, gave their versions of events to the Los
Angeles Daily Star, blaming each other for the outbreak. But Yuen
provided a key piece of evidence in his account, saying his men
opened fire on Bilderrain because
he came for them in the company of Hing, his enemy.” Sam
Yuen’s
published accounts says, ”The policemen were then at
Caswell, Ellis & Wright's corner, and immediately ran over to
where the shooting took place, and then came back with Yo Hing and
others to the Win Chung house, in the Coronel block. At that time the
inmates, thinking and believing that Yo Hing and party had come to
kill them, some of them commenced firing in defence of their lives.”
This is the first and only claim Yo Hing was in the Coronel
building. No other witness ever mentions seeing Yo Hing
that day except for George Fall who saw Yo Hing on Main Street, in
front of Alec Rendon’s barber shop. It’s possible that Yo Hing
pursued the Nin Yung men into the Coronel building. And Sam Yuen
did also state that Yo Hing was asking around at the Pico House for
Yuen. However, it's unlikely would risk entering the Coronel building knowing that Nin Yung had made two attempts to assassinate him.
John also adds, “Finally, there was a monumental reversal by Bilderrain that casts doubt on his original explanation for the start of the massacre. He and his friends gave several accounts of what he saw that night, sometimes naming Yuen and sometimes not.” And also, “But by the time Yuen filed suit against the city of Los Angeles to recover his lost gold, Bilderrain had come around 180 degrees. He testified for Yuen, claiming he had never seen the gang leader on the night of the massacre.” This is again false. Bilderrain did swear out a warrant for Sam Yuen for “having aided, abetted, and encourag[ing] those who took part in the killing of Robert Thompson.” But he never claimed that he saw Sam Yuen. In Bilderrain’s testimony he said, “did think once that he [Yuen] was concerned in killing Thompson; thought so strongly as to make an affidavit to that effect.”
Johnson again takes inspiration from De Falla and offers this unsubstantiated nonsense, “Baker's next action was even stranger. With gunfire ringing out behind him, he went home to bed, leaving the mob in charge.” Marshal Baker had been guarding the Plaza side of the block. In Baker’s own words: "The Sheriff and officers Harris and Gard then had charge of the front of Coronel's building, and I went back and took charge of the guard on the corner of the Plaza, where I stood until parties had gotten in at the roof, and the shooting was over."
He tries desperately to reinforce De Falla’s claim that different officers were allied with different Chinese companies, but the sequence of events here is out of order, “As they stood their pointless vigil, it is likely they had one thing on their minds: reward. Both men were allied with Yuen. Just days before the riot, one newspaper reported they had received nice presents from him.” The gifts that Harris and Gard were given came months after the massacre. As reported in the Daily News January 31, 1872: “Officers Gard and Harris, were yesterday the recipients of a beautiful gift, consisting of Chinese embroidery, presented by the Wing Ching company, as a testimonial of their appreciation of services rendered from time to time.” This token gift of embroidery would hardy be enough to curry favors from supposedly corrupt police.
Johnson then criticizes Harris Newmark for leaving the area after Bob Thompson was killed, “Harris Newmark, one of the most respected members of the business community, wrote years later that he heard a shot as he left work that night. Walking over to Los Angeles Street, he learned that Thompson had been killed. Newmark said he went home to supper "expecting no further trouble.” The statement strains belief. By the time the mob learned Thompson had died, its blood was up. Given L.A.'s record of vigilantism, it didn't require much imagination to foresee what would come next." Newmark's account does not make it clear if he was aware of Bob Thomspon’s death before or after heading home. Newmark heard the first shots as he was leaving his office. And he does in fact state, “I soon ascertained that it had ended Thompson's life.” however, Thompson did not die until two hours later. So unless he loitered around for two hours before going home for diner, I doubt his recollection was accurate. Regardless, when he later learned of the riot, he returned downtown with Cameron E. Thom and John G. Downey.
The massacre was likely brought to an end when all the available victims were either secured in jail or already killed. However Johnson gives us this ludicrous statement, “The massacre finally was brought to an end by Sheriff James Burns, a colorful figure known as "Daddy" to the gamblers and whores. He pleaded that if just 25 volunteers from the crowd of onlookers stood with him, he could stop the mob. He soon was hoisted on the shoulders of the crowd and carried into the alley — and the murderers faded into the night.” I am not sure where Johnson found the nickname “Daddy”, or even the part about Burns being carried by the crowd.
Then Johnson’s tries to imply that “influential citizens” are always to blame, “The fact that Los Angeles lynch men included influential citizens was shown by the access they were given to one of the city's finest and newest structures, Teutonia Hall, in which to deliberate Lachenais' fate. Afterward, they marched through downtown in the light of day before dragging the accused to his fate.” First, there is no “structure” called Teutonia Hall. The newest buildings at that time were the Pico Hotel, the Arcadia, Downey, and Temple blocks, and the Merced theater. Teutonia Hall was likely just a room in a house or hotel used by Teutonia-Concordia Turn-und Singverein, one of the two Germanic benevolent societies at that time; Turnverein Germania was the other. I’m not sure where Johnson was leading with these comments, but it doesn’t add up to anything.
Johnson repeats De Falla’s assertion that Judge Widney was not yet a lawyer, which is disproved by Zesch. “Presiding over the trial was Robert Widney, the hero of the massacre, who acted to save Chinese people when police would not. But according to historian De Falla, Widney wasn't even a member of the bar, and wouldn't be for some months.” According to Scott Zesch in The Chinatown War, "Local attorney Robert M.Widney, who had been admitted to the bar six years earlier and had just turned thirty-three…"
Next, Johnson tries to suggest Guard and Harris colluded with Crenshaw and lied to protect him from prosecution, “The grand jury finally issued indictments accusing two dozen men of murder. But not one prominent person was on the list — not Fall, not Mitchell, not Harris or Gard. While awaiting trial, two of the accused, Louis "Fatty" Mendell and L.F. "Curly" Crenshaw, received visits in jail from Harris and Gard. The first to stand trial was Crenshaw. In short order, he was convicted. Not of murder, the obvious crime, but of manslaughter. How could that be? Witnesses said Curly had fired down on Chinese from atop the Coronel Building. But Curly had a powerful ally. Policeman Gard — who did little to stop the lynching — testified that he gave his rifle to Curly to hold while he put out a fire on the roof. When he got it back, he said, the gun contained the same number of bullets. Suddenly, Gard's and Harris' jailhouse visit made sense.” The most relevant testimony about Crenshaw came from Benjamin McLaughlin who was at Rapp’s Saloon on Sanchez street. During the inquest, he said he saw Curly “jump on the roof with a pistol in his hand.” and during Crenshaw’s trial, he said, ”he left Rapp's saloon, walked in front of me, jumped on the wall and got on the roof.” and “when I saw him he was running backward and forward like the rest” and “they, were shooting back into the corral in the direction of Caswell's; could not see into the corral from where I stood; could not tell what they were shooting at.” and “could not say whether he shot; there were so many shooting at the time;” and “he declared he had killed 3 Chinamen not in a very grave manner; he was talking about shooting them; he said first he had killed them; he afterwards said he shot them.” McLaughlin’s testimony confirms Crenshaw had a gun of his own when he mounted the building. So it’s reasonable to assume that Crenshaw shot at victim’s with his own gun. And to add some perspective, we know from the Coroner’s inquest six victims had gunshot wounds. One was Gene Tong ,who was shot by the mob somewhere on Los Angeles street. Another was Ah Cut, shot trying to run across Negro Alley. A third was a man seen dead in a bunk inside the Coronel,. A forth man was also shot on Negro Alley. And one man was shot while hiding under a bunk. That leaves only one potential victim that may or may not have been shot in the corral. But the whole debate about Gard’s shotgun is irrelevant because the indictment against Crenshaw was for aiding and abetting the murder of Gene Tong, who was not in the corral.
Johnson then discusses the fatal flaw in the case but manages to get the facts reversed, “Prosecutor Thom had correctly charged the defendants with murdering the beloved Dr. Tong. But Thom had failed to introduce evidence that Tong had been killed.” The flaw in the case was that the indictment itself did not state that Gene Tong was dead. This was a point debate before the trial. Kewen and Harward argued that the indictment was legally insufficient. Widney could not legally allow Cameron Thom to amend the indictment. And the only other option would have been to impanel a new Grand Jury, which would have delayed the trial and incurred a tremendous cost. The County was already under great financial stress at this point because the jail was already at capacity. Just two months earlier, the Star published the following comments,”There are now in the County Jail about fifty persons, apprehended upon criminal charges, and remaining there at an immense cost to the county, and we have reason to believe, just because citizens evade their duty as jurors.” The decision to move forward with the trial was one of economy and the belief that the law required the words of an indictment to be read in the usual acceptance of common language.
Johnson adds, “Thom's mistake was the error of a rookie, not of a veteran prosecutor. What's more, Thom never attempted to retry the defendants. He also never brought to trial the majority of those accused by the grand jury. After a time, the indictments themselves were mislaid, so that no future trials could be held.” It is true that the defendants were not retried. But it’s doubtful the indictments were “mislaid”. I agree in-part with Johnson. There were so many other cases that just seemed to die on the vine. And it would be beneficial to know the rationale why other men were not tried, like Edmond Crawford, as reported in the Star on April 8, 1872, “E. Crawford, one of the alleged rioters, who has been confined in jail for the past five or six months, has not been tried yet. He says he is going to demand a trial in the course of a few days. Like all the rest of the rioters, he says he is innocent.” The last we hear of Crawford is in August 1872 when it was reported his trial was “passed informally”. Ramon Dominguez was also indicted for murder by never tried. Ambrosio Ruiz was indicted but never prosecuted. J. G. Scott indicted for murder but discharged before the trial began. And Thomas Armanta, the man who stole Doctor Tong’s ring, escaped from the County hospital.
Johnson closes with a remark from USC historian Doyce Nunis, "You've got to look at what motivated the killers. The economy was on the decline with the end of the Civil War. There was social dislocation. Blacks were moving in. The Chinese were very successful. All these things caused resentment." I would argue that the economy in Los Angeles, at that time, was stronger than ever. New construction was occurring all over the city. There was very little mention of the black population, other than the occasional vitriol spewed forth by the Daily News. And the only outward demonstration of intolerance towards the black population, around this time, was reported on August 29, 1871, when several “young Hoodlums” were “going up on the hill west of Hill Street, and stoning the house used by the colored school.” Also, the Chinese population at that time was not very significant. The only businesses that complained publicly about competition were cigar makers and wash houses; specifically Vogelsdorff's Cigar Factory, Steam Laundry, and Mark Pemberton's American Laundry. It’s much more likely that the animosity towards the Chinese was fomented by political rhetoric streaming from the Los Angeles Daily News and the Democratic Party, who at that time was vehemently against Chinese immigration.
1886 P. S. Dorney(AKA Patrick Sarsfield De Orny)
1894 C. P. Dorland
1916 Harris Newmark
1930 Horace Bell
1960 Paul M. DeFalla
2012 Scott Zesch
Comments
Post a Comment