Long Beach, California 1914

LUST, LANGUAGE, AND LEGISLATION: LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1914 Craig Scott N May 7, 1915 the German military torpedoed the Lusitania killing Q hundreds of passengers, and on the same day the California Assembly unanimously approved Assembly Bill 219 (AB 219), which would outlaw oral sex throughout the state. A few weeks later on June 2, 1915, California governor Hiriam Johnson signed AB 219 into law. This legislation stemmed from a scandal in Long Beach that had hit newspa pers in November 1914 involving homosexual activities among a group of men. The scandal offers a uniquely rich source of primary materials in gay history and Californians diverse views towards gay men. Some thought homosexuality needed to be eliminated while others were more tolerant. Sacramento Bee (Bee) editor C. K. McClatchy hired southern California investigator Eugene Fisher to gather and report back details of the scandal in Long Beach. The writings of Fisher, and some of McClatchy’s correspondences back to Fisher, still remain in the Sacra mento County archives.’ Comparing documents one sees how McClatchy coupled homophobia with xenophobic and contemporaneous nationalis tic anxieties to push for repressive legislation. On November 14, 1914, newspapers in Los Angeles and Sacramento published articles on a vice scandal unfolding in Long Beach, California. Editors C. K. McClatchy at the Bee and Harrison Gray Otis at the Los Angeles Times (Times) published partial lists of names of the men who had been arrested.2 John Lamb had been arrested for sexual activity with another man and the Times published his name as part of its coverage of the scandal. Lamb took cyanide and left a suicide note to his family on a southern California beach. In the note Lamb explained he “could not “McClatchy, C. K.: Homosexual Issue 1910-1915,” file CDi 002 o6o, Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center. The police charged them with “social vagrancy.” Vagrancy was tool used against many marginal people in the early twentieth century. Queer historian William Eskridge points out this was a law used at this time primarily against prostitutes in, William Eskridge, Dishonorable Passions: Sodomy Laws in America 1861-2003 (New York: Viking, 2008), 94 Craig Scott endure this publicity.”3 Authorities responded banning the sale of poisons in Long Beach.4 Shortly thereafter, Herbert Lowe, also named in the newspapers, went on trial and a jury acquitted him. After his acquit tal prosecutors dropped charges against the other men identified in the scandal. The Times and the Bee ran nearly daily reports of the Lowe proceedings. Examining the newspapers closely one sees editors’ different biases and goals emerge. The correspondences received from fisher when compared to the final articles printed in the paper show how McClatchy transformed, focused, and embellished his raw data to created articles for his paper and exploited anxieties about war and fears of foreign influ ences to push for legislative action. In Sacramento, two brothers C. K. McClatchy as editor, and V. S. McClatchy as publisher, owned and ;9;4.5 operated the Bee in At the time of the Long Beach scandal the Bee was by far the biggest newspaper in Sacramento and, as editor, C. K. McClatchy was responsible for content.6 The brothers used the Bee as a platform for their shared disdain for the Japanese.7 In Los Angeles, the scandal turned into fodder for an old personal feud between the editors of two large dailies, the Los Angeles Times owned by Harrison Gray Otis, and Edwin T. Earl owner of the Los Angeles Evening Express (Express) and Los Angeles Tribune (Tribune).8 The newspaper coverage also reveals a variety of opinions about homo “Long Beach Uncovers Social Vagrant’ Clan: Thirty Men Heavily Fined or Given County-Jail Sentences—Church and Business Men Included in List of Guilty Ones who, Police Say They Have Evidence to Show, were Organized for Immoral Purposes,” Los Angeles Times, November 14, 1914; “Exposure of Bizarre Orgies Causes Suicide: Unable to Bear Shame, Wealthy Church Member of Long Beach Takes Poison—Thirty Men Fined or Sentenced—Participants in Orgies Dressed as Women in Kimonos,” Sacramento Bee, November 14, 1914. “Long Beach Uncovers,” Los Angeles Times, November 14, 1914; “Exposure of Bizarre Orgies,” Sacramento Bee, November 14, 1914. Bernard Shepard, “C. K. McClatchy and the Sacramento Bee, 1883—1936” (Ph.D. diss., Syracuse University, 1960), 23—24. 6The Sacramento Bee published on April lo, 1915 the most recent paid subscriber data for the Sacramento daily papers. The nearest competitor had less than half of the Bees sales. “Comparative Circulations of Sacramento Daily Papers: Some Statistics From Six State ments Made to the federal Government,” Sacramento Bee, April io, 1915; for content influence see Shepard, “C. K. and Bee,” 26—31. Roger Daniels points out the brothers “differences of opinion did not include the Japanese question” in Roger Daniels, The Politics of Prejudice: The Anti-Japanese Movement in California and the Strugglefor Japanese Exclusion (New York: University of California, 1968), 91; Chris Stewart Nielsen, “Whiteness Imperiled: Anti-Asian Sentiment in California, 1900—1930” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Riverside, 2007), 183—234. 8 California historian Kevin Starr refers to Earl’s relationship to Otis as an “arch-rival in publishing and detested personal enemy,” in Kevin Starr, Inventing The Dream: Col(fornia Through The Progressive Era” (New York: Oxford University Press, ig8), 250. Ex PosT FAao LUST, LANGUAGE, AND LEGlsTloN 95 sexuality. After John Lamb took his own life, Earl’s Tribune published an editorial condemning the Times’ ethics in reporting the names of the men involved in the scandal and the subsequent publicity.9 The Times responded with an editorial entitled, “Defense of Degenerates,” and referred to Earl as “the editor of the Morning Sodomite and the Evening Degenerate.”° The accusations continued with a series of articles, satirical cartoons and bickering back and forth, adding to a long-running feud. Quickly, the two editors were more interested in hurling accusa tions against each other than reporting on the Long Beach scandal and ultimately a lawsuit. Eventually, their lawsuit ended up before the California Supreme Court.” In San Francisco the Chronicle published a single story about Lamb’s suicide on page fifty-five and San Franciscans heard no more about the Southern California scandal from their news papers.’2 The feud and a close reading ofthe later stories in the Times provide some insight into why the Times dropped the story. The Times depicted citizens with diverse and conflicting attitudes toward homosexuality. While there were Letters to the Editor expressing outrage at the actions ofthe men and advocating for more publicity, there were also indications of support for Lowe.’3 The Times reported much interest in the trial of Herbert Lowe with hundreds of people trying to crowd into the cour troom. Some spectators arrived early and sold their seats to late-comers, but tellingly the reports omitted any reference to outrage from the crowds at the courthouse.’4 Many in the community expressed their support financially for Lowe with a “rush of business at the Lowe flower shop since the victim achieved wide mention in the case.”5 With Earl at the Express questioning the morality ofpublishing details ofthe scandal, the community engaged in “a rushing business” to support Lowe, and the Editorial, “Journalism That Is So Brutal That It Kills,” Los Angeles Tribune, November 19, 1914. All citations from the Los Angeles Express and Los Angeles Tribune are from, E. T. Earl v. Times-Mirror Company, et aL, Transcript on Appeal, California Supreme Court Records, Case No. LA5498, California State Archives (hereafter cited as Earl v. Times- Mirror). 0 Editorial, Defense of Degenerates,” Los Angeles Times, December 3, 1914. Earl v. Times-Mirror. “Takes Life To Avoid Scandal,” San Francisco Chronicle, November 15, 1914. ° Mrs. Chas. P. M’Hugh, “Are They lnsane?—A Woman’s Query,” Los Angeles Times, November i8, 1914; W. A. Doyle, “Publicity the Right Thing,” LosAngeles Times, November 24, 1914; A. Carpenter, “Doesn’t Approve of Sodomy,” Las Angeles Times, November 28, Angeles Times, November 1914; J. R. Henderson, “Sodomites and Their Sympathizers,” Los z8, 1914. “ “Pay for Seats; Trial Delayed,” Los Angeles Times, November 17, 1914. ° “Week’s Delay For Decision; Court Takes Time on Social Vagrant Cases. Accused Florist is Doing a Rushing Business,” Los Angeles Times, November 25, 1914. VOLUME XIX 2oro 96 Craig Scott Times characterizing Lowe as a “victim,” it was apparent southern California was not unanimously appalled by the accusations. The Times managed within its own paper to convey more than the one point of view. Within McClatchy’s paper, no divergence of opinion emerged.’6 The Sacramento Bee, published hundreds of miles away from Long Beach, was far more extensive than either the local coverage in Southern California or the passing interest in San Francisco and, largely alone, continued the publicity and the call for legislation. C. K. McClatchy’s fascination has intrigued historians looking at the scandal. The first author to write about the Long Beach scandal and McClatchy was Sharon Ullman who first published her findings in, “female Impersonation and Sexual Practice in Turn-of-the Century America.”7 She concluded visual clues indicating a change in traditional gender roles were largely permitted for female impersonators at the turn of the century

Load more