Old newspapers: drama above Pasadena

Post by **dima** » Sat Jan 09, 2021 3:31 am

I just stumbled on something really interesting. This will take a few posts. First, this happened:

(Los Angeles Daily Times. 1901/8/9 Page 10)

What did this Angels Gold Mining Company do? Find out in the next post!

Post by **dima** » Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:19 pm

As expected, the Angels Gold Mining Company filed some gold mining claims, 3 years after incorporating. On 1904/07/09 the LA evening express (page 19) had this to say:

Super! The plat maps are available from the LA department of public works: https://pw.lacounty.gov/smpm/landrecord ... Plats.aspx

The 2N12W quadrant specifically:

T 2 N R 12 W.pdf: (1.82 MiB) Downloaded 19 times

The claims in context:

And the claims in detail:

This is a big area just above Pasadena. The Carrie mine below the Lone Tree trail is one of these, as are a number of others. So is a "Mining Boom Probable"? Find out tomorrow.

Post by **dima** » Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:54 pm

So the future sounded bright, but there was a problem. A careful reader would note that the mining claims overlap some parts of the Mt. Lowe railway. This wasn't yet constructed, but the land was acquired, and plans were made. The railway right-of-way was granted by Congress, but any conflicting mineral claim would override this grant. This is noted on a different page (page 10) of the same 1904/07/09 issue of the LA Evening Express, but the LA Times edition of the same day describes it in more detail (page 13):

So were they after gold or water? If they were really after water and the land wasn't gold-bearing, then the Mineral Land Act doesn't apply, and Pacific Electric's claims older claims win. What happened next? Find out tomorrow!

Post by **dima** » Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:43 pm

So apparently the railway was already built and operating at this time, which makes this whole episode even more ballsy. The issue was that Pacific Electric hasn't bothered to survey the rights-of-way. Anywho, on 1904/07/10, the LA times (page 13) talked to the miners' lawyer, who said that they wanted gold.

And the following day (1904/7/11), the guy from the San Francisco Chronicle (page 6) thought the whole thing was ridiculous, and that Congress should pass a law to make it go away:

The question that keeps coming up is whether there's actually any gold over there. Once the case actually got going several months later, on 1904/11/05 the LA Times (page 14) talks about some samples being submitted that "do not show a trace of mineral". Well that's no good.

This article is also noteworthy because of the article directly below it. It describes Mrs. Griffith's divorce application from Mr. Griffith (the "Griffith Park" guy) after he shot her in the face. The divorce was granted in record time.

Post by **Sean** » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:45 am

dima wrote: ↑It describes Mrs. Griffith's divorce application from Mr. Griffith (the "Griffith Park" guy) after he shot her in the face. The divorce was granted in record time.

There's a city park (and observatory!) that needs renaming. I propose Bad Hubby Park (and Bad Hubby Observatory).

Post by **dima** » Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:41 pm

Sean wrote: ↑
dima wrote: ↑It describes Mrs. Griffith's divorce application from Mr. Griffith (the "Griffith Park" guy) after he shot her in the face. The divorce was granted in record time.
There's a city park (and observatory!) that needs renaming. I propose Bad Hubby Park (and Bad Hubby Observatory).

Heh. Yeah. My understanding is that the city was reluctant to take his land and his money, and only developed the park and observatory years after was dead and mostly forgotten.

Post by **dima** » Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:49 pm

So we have a (very slow) trial. Did they find gold? Do we keep our railroad? A year later, the case was resolved. On 1905/10/19 the LA times (page 17) said

They didn't find gold in "sufficient quantities", so the claims were invalidated, and we got to keep our railroad! This is mostly the end of the story, except this case apparently was damaging to the career of one C.J. Callahan. Years later, on 1908/05/19 (on page 17) the LA Times published this:

The miners' expert geologist was a fraudster, and the extra scrutiny of this trial exposed his methods! Final installment tomorrow.

Post by **Sean** » Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:13 pm

I like the drama but some of the clippings are fuzzy and difficult to read, even when I download the image. Perhaps you could snip the original file in sections with larger text next time. Are you pulling these from the UC Riverside newspaper collection?

Post by **dima** » Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:35 pm

These are the most "original" images I have access to (although I can play with the brightness, which maybe would improve things). Everything's sorta readable. These are all from newspapers.com. I finally broke down, and gave them money. Never used the UCR archive, but compared to the LAPL archives, they have more newspapers (I think), and the interface and search function is 1000 times better. You can find stuff and read stuff very quickly, unlike with the LAPL pages.

These articles are all search results for "Angels Gold Mining Company", which I originally looked up after looking at the plat maps.

Post by **dima** » Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:36 pm

Are you sure you're looking at the full-size images? Which article is worst-readable for you?

Post by **dima** » Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:05 pm

Alright, so the LA Times did a little exposé on this Callahan fellow, and the police then decided to arrest the guy. On 1908/09/09 the LA times had this to say on page 5:

This article also describes his "Gold Bullfrog Mining Company" scam. The Bullfrog mines were in the Goldfield, Rhyolite areas in/near Death Valley. Apparently he claimed to have found lots of gold in none area, and sold lots of claims based on the false evidence. The trial started soon after that. On 1908/10/15 (page 16) the LA times wrote this:

There're lots of articles describing the trial, including one with a drawing of Callahan. Unsurprisingly, he has a thick mustache. And eventually (1909/02/20 LA Times page 2) we get this:

So I guess that's that. The miners got their water (for a time), we got to keep the railroad (until everything burned down), and Callahan went on to keep doing his thing.

One thing that I can't quite figure out is that plenty of old reports claim that there WAS gold above Pasadena, despite what happened in this case. The Carrie (involved in this lawsuit) and the Surprise (NOT involved in this lawsuit) were supposedly producing 10 years before any of this was began (plenty of 1890s reports about Mr. Dickey and Mr. Carson forming the Rubio Canyon Gold Mining Company, and doing their thing). So I don't know. If somebody wants to do more research, please do!

Post by **Sean** » Fri Jan 15, 2021 9:35 am

dima wrote: ↑Are you sure you're looking at the full-size images? Which article is worst-readable for you?

Well, "Gold From Flower Pots" was the worst. But I see the issue now and have downloaded the full-size copy. This is another mobile vs desktop view problem. I'll start a different thread for the technical issue.