• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Forward Preface The Sourisseau Academy for California State and Local History The essays in this volume are the fruits of a special project of San Jose State University takes pride in presenting its first undertaken by the students of a graduate United States history number in a projected series, "Odginal Research in Santa Clara seminar at San Jose State University on Spring, 1973. The seminar County History - Student Publications." members decided to make a case study of Progressivism - concen· .~ The essays in this publication, edited by Professor David W. trating on Progressive Era municipal reform in San Jose and Santa Eakins, represent some of the best student research and writing Cruz and using local research sources. The study is an introduction­ that has taken place on this university campus on the subject of to the topic and is not intended to be the final word. Nevertheless, California and local history. Congratulations are in order to despite such limitations as the time available for the project and Professor Eakins for all his efforts on behalf of student scholarship the incompleteness of some of the recold (the scarcity of material in the History Department. about - or oy - the opponents of reform, themselves, for The Sourisseau Academy intends to continue this puolication example), we believe this study sheds valuable light on some of the program, and we look .forward to more such presentations in the backgr<;mn d to present San Jose and its institutions. near future. • The work was jointly done in several senses. We had many Robert E. Levinson discussions in the course of the research and writing in which we Associate Professor of History shared criticisms, ideas and concepts, sources (and blind alleys). Director of the Sourisseau Academy and - not least - real pleasure and enthusiasm. The cooperation of others made the outcome possible. We wish especially t o thank the follOWing : Eugene Gilbert, a volunteer worker at the San Jose Historical Museum; Dennis R. Peterson, the former Curator, John B. Dowty , the fooner Director, and Donald DeMers , the current Director of the San Jose Historical Museum, who has been helpful in providing materials for use in the fmal preparation of this volume; Rita Bottoms, Director of Special Collections at the University of California, Santa Cruz, Library ; Samuel Leask Ill; Gordon Sinclair, Managing Editor of the Santa Cruz Sentinel; Mrs. A Mellon, City Clerk of Santa Cruz, and her staff; the Director and other members of the Sourisseau Academy for much help and forbearance; and Nancy Favier, Designer, and Doris Gilbert, Artist, ,San Jose State University Publications, for unusual dedication to ·1 their craft. David W. Eakins All photographs courtesy of the San Jose Historical Museum. ~Copyright 1976/ Sourisseau Academy for California State and Local History/San Jose State University /San Jose, CA 95192 '. Introduction By David W Eakins 2 The DiscO\eryof Corruptim as a Public Issue: The Good Government League and the Machine in SanJose . 1896-1902 By John Herberich am Patricia K Cannon 4 The W>rswick Reformers and "The Push;' 1902-1904 By Richard C Wclkefield 8 Centralization and Efficiepcy: 'The Reformers Shape Mx.iern San Jose Government, 1910-1916 By Valeria Ell~th and And-rew1 Grubely 12 The Te~rate Progressives ofSanta Cruz, 1906-1916 By PhilipWright and .Jon Gundersgaad -18 fuotnotes. 20 The Authors 22 WEaki~~ction , ~ David . ns Beginning in the I890s many American communities suddcnly outrage was a product of a new morality is a circular argument that awoke to the evils of "bossism" and corruption in municipal is obviously true, but unhelpful. It sheds no light on the causes of government. This was a national phenomenon that affccted San the new attitudes. Without disputing the plain fact o f the new Jose and Santa Cruz no less than many other towns across the morality and its significance we must look first at the changj ng country. The cvils thcmselves were nothing new on the American nature of the American city on the national scene as a whole; at urban scene, but they were now, for some reason, intolerable 1.0 the new demands for municipal services; and then we must ask w11Y II growing numbers of local leading citizens. the old politics inhibited-most of all for businessmen-the fu ll As historian Samuel Hays and othcrs have noted, it is not realization of economic benHits from those innovations. sufficient to view municipal reform simply as a battle between the In the l890s a ncw technology was developed in the United forces of "honesty" and "corruption" even though that is the way Stat~s that provided the basis for new national economic growth. reformers described the events themselves. What distinguishcd the That techn ology-in particular, electricity and the au tomobHe­ emerging Progressives from the old guard machIne politicians was changed the face of urban America. The new inventions rapidly - not idealism as opposed to purchaseable pragmatism. The reform­ became central to American economic and social life. Electric ers, too, could make deals with the bosses. What was new in many lights, appliances, telephones, streetcars, and motor vehicles "':. American towns were new economic forces, and a new set of ideas brought jobs and profits for city dwellers, but it was up to city in response to those forces, that rendered what once had been government to provide most of the means by which those inven­ acceptable political practice now insupportable. Corruption had tions could be utilized. It was the responsibility of city politicians become too expensive. None of this is to say that the rhetoric of to provide paved and lighted streets for the automobile, and track s idealism and civic morali.ty was insincere, nor even that it was not and right-of-way and electricity for the "street railways.:' More­ deeply believed by the reformers. But to understand what moved over, the new technology did not creep into the American town; it these people it is necessary to go beyond their own evaluation of came in a rush. For example, the plant and equipment value of the themselves and their works. In other words, what did they do? electrical light and power industry in the United States was $96 Who were they? What specific practices did they, in fact; elimin­ million in 1895. It doubled in value about every five years there­ ate? What positive changes did they introduce'! What concrete after. By 1917 the industry was valued at over two billion dollars. benefits rcsulted from their positive rerorms? Who benefitted? and The street and electric railways grew at a similarly impressive. pace, who opposed the reforms? Some of these are difficult questions. In with a plant and equipment value of $430 million in 1895 and $2.6 applying them to events in San Jose and Santa Cruz thc authors of billion in 1917. The value of electric household appliances and the essays in this volume have not always provided complete supplies was about $2.4 million in 1900 and nearly $59 million in answers. But dcspite the limitations of time and research materials 1917. The most spectacular growth, however, was in the auto­ a number o f conclusions can safely be drawn. motive industry. In 1900 there were eight thousand motor vehicles The usual pattern of municipal reform elscwhere in the United registered in the United States; in 1910, nearly half a million; and States was reproduced in San Jose and, in part, in Santa Cruz. City by 1917 over five million. In 1890 the outstanding highway debt government was centralized. Local ward representation was of all the states was only $11,000. By 1917 it stood at $ 15 4 replaced by the city-wide election of councilmcn. The powers of million. But despite this growing state responsibility, it was the the elected mayor were increasingly whittled away, and then virtu­ American towns and cities that financed most of the new paved ally eliminated with the provision for the appointment of an urban roads. At the close of the Progressive Era American municipalities efficiency expert-the city manager. Thus, not only was direct were s~ending about a third of a billion dollars a year for city local democracy diminished by the removal of ward autonomy, but streets. the major city policy maker was placcd beyond thc reach of city The demands of the new technology upon city government in votcrs. To be sure, the reformers introduced somc of the Progres­ the Progressive Era were enormous-assuming, that is, that local sive Era mechanisms of "direct democracy" in the initiative, refer­ politicians desired that technology for their communities. The point endum, and recall. But these measures were minor appendages to a is, however, they really had little choice-not even in those Ameri­ larger dcsign. They secm to have been added for the sake of gaining can towns like San Jose whose basic wealth was derived at l.east voter consent to a system of centralized control. In San Jose, for indirectly from agriculture. American cities and towns could not, example, the city manager wlw was the most powcrful city official, even had they wished to do so, opt out of a capitalist political was carcfully cxcluded from recall by the voters. economy. Commerce and industry provided an increasing percent­ The reformers came from a narrow spectrum of the population. age of America's jobs and incomes and tax rcvenues. Thus the In San Jose and Santa Cruz they were almost exclusively leading centrality of the urban businessman in the economic hence the membcrs of the business community. Later, in San Jose, some political life of American towns.

Load more

  28

Copy Link