Here is one for you historians

[Doc Hoy]

Good info Triple B

We had a similar discussion a while ago about the number of folks who had a revolver.

I thought during that conversation that there is a way to know the total number of revolvers manufactured up until the period we were discussing in comparison to the population of the US at the time. A little harder to know the number of revolvers available in the geographic area under discussion but at least we would have a number to start with.

This question about horses may be a little more difficult because it might be harder to pin down the total number of horses available.

 

[Doc Hoy]

I did a little reading this morning

I pulled up the census from 1880 and reviewed about ten municipalities in midwestern to western states.

The lowest population was 8500. I think that was Laramie, Wyoming. The highest was San Francisco at 233,000. Each of the cities I looked at were served by railroads. All had a senior police official refered to as either "Marshall" or as "Police chief". Those assisting the senior law enforcement guy were known as patrolmen. San Francisco's Chief was the highest paid at 4,000.00 per year. The lowest was paid 1,000.00 per year. Patrolmen were paid a low of $50.00 per month. A substantial meal in a cafe cost 10 to 20 cents. Most of the places I looked at had a population under 20,000.00 and had under 15 members of the law enforcement force. Every town required that law enforcement officers to carry a "club" and a revolver. In half the cases it was refered to as a "Navy revolver". It is interesting to note that two towns had equal population, one in Ohio and one in a western town, (I think Atchison, Kansas) But the western town had a law enforcement force twice the size of the Ohio town and made five times as many arrests in the year. I got a chuckle from that fact.

Only one town, Los Angeles made any mention of mounted patrolmen who were detailed to patrol the outlying regions. One fifth of their force (2 patrolmen) were mounted.

The word "sheriff" or "deputy" was never used. All of the entries mentioned the power of the sanctioning body to appoint "supplemental patrolmen" who acted precisely as did the regular patrolmen but on a temporary basis. It seemed as though the supplemental patrolmen in San Francisco might have been nearly permanent in their status.

All refered to a uniform which was invariably dark or navy blue. In some cases the town provided the uniform with the patrolmen required to provide the hat. In other cases, the officer provided their own uniform. In one case, they were given a $25.00 alotment to buy uniform items.

In most cases, the total annual expenditure for law enforcement services was included and in every case but one it equalled almost precisely the sum of the annual salaries for the members of the force. Most of the articles mentioned expenditures for meals provided to "lodgers" (folks incarcerated in the jails) at from 8 1/2 to 14 cents each.

The indication of the absence from annual budgets of a sum that would cover horses is that either, a) the patrolmen did not use mounts, b) provided their own without be paid for them, c) were paid from a fund not covered under reported law enforcement expenses, or d) were provided mounts on an as-needed basis which was so rare and therefore minimally expensive as to have been covered under the reported expenses but not itemized in the census documents.

 

[arcticap]

Only one town, Los Angeles made any mention of mounted patrolmen who were detailed to patrol the outlying regions.

Maybe that's a problem with those records.
This is what I discovered about San Francisco having mounted police (along with a photo) on the SFPD history page:

Department staffing was gradually increased during the early 1870s in an attempt to match the growing population and increasing problems. Mounted patrols were established in the area west of Van Ness Avenue. In the First District, which then encompassed 20 square miles running from South of Market to Ocean Beach, the officers were equipped with a horse and a wagon for patrol purposes. There was also another wagon to transport prisoners from the outlying stations to the Hall of Justice.

Police Districts 1880s
Because of the previous inability of officers to control vice in Chinatown, the Chinatown Squad, shown at left, was established in the early 1880s.
In 1889 the department established a patrol wagon/call box system through which officers could call their stations for the first time and obtain speedy backup assistance. Reserve officers standing by in stations would mount the wagons and respond quickly to calls for assistance and other emergencies.
In the mid-1890s the early wagons had open beds. They were later converted to the covered "New York" type, pictured below.

http://sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=1592

Mounted police officers patrol the [Golden Gate] park today as they have for more than 90 years, beginning in 1910.

http://sfrecpark.org/GGP-History.aspx

Excerpts About San Antonio:

1870: * Reconstruction Texas Governor E.J. Davis set up a State Police force under the Police Act, with authority to operate anywhere in the state (known as the "Davis Police").
1872: * Police Act overturned. Texas Rangers re-instated.

1874: * Texas Legislature creates two special Texas Ranger forces to deal with widespread lawlessness. Between 1870 and 1900 a series of "Black Books" of wanted fugitives were issued to Texas Rangers. the books served as blanket arrest warrants; crimes ranged from theft (hog theft was a felony) to rape and murder. The 1878 version contains names of more than 3,000 wanted felons.

MILEPOSTS: The post-Civil War/Reconstruction period brought increased prosperity to San Antonio, particularly due to the cattle drives that originated in this area, as well as the continued military presence and an increase in tourism. During the last three decades of the 19th c, the city enjoyed a population and building boom, gained electric street lighting and telephones, and witnessed the arrival of the automobile.

LAW ENFORCEMENT : According to the Texas Ranger History, by 1875 the biggest threat to Texas was lawless Texans. The growth of San Antonio as a center for commerce (particularly cattle drives and military-related business) and tourism led to new law enforcement problems. The cattle trails connected the Texas cowboys with the saloons, gambling and dance halls of Kansas. So many cattle made cattle rustling so much more attractive. Ex-soldiers and deserters from the Civil War, along with local and family feuds begun during Reconstruction, continued to cause problems. The 1870s to 1890s were the period of famous Texas outlaws such as John Wesley Hardin and Sam Bass. In 1879 Texas Governor Oran Roberts told the legislature that the "amount and character" of crime in Texas was "entirely unprecedented" in the United States.

1890: * POPULATION of San Antonio = 37,653

1893: * W.D. Druse becomes City Marshal 2/27/93.
A new "Police Station", with 4 mounted officers, is set up on Alamo Street.[This appears to have been San Antonio's first "police substation".]

http://www.sanantonio.gov/sapd/history1d.htm

 

[Doc Hoy]

Yes....More good info

In the history of one of the states I read in the census data, the author complained of 100 murders all of which went unpunished in 1851. He was proud of the fact that in the year before the census, all murderers had been apprehended or "chased off". I guess as long as murderers were not killing local folks, it was okay.

 

[bedbugbilly]

Doc - from some of the reading that I've done since I started wintering here in AZ, the AZ Territory used to put some of their "criminals" (I'm assuming that didn't include murderers - only my assumption though) on a train and ship them to Deming, NM.

Your approach through the census records is interesting. It's too bad that more detailed information wasn't collected in the late 1800s. There are of course errors due to the information being collected by local census takers - I've found a number of discrepencies in doing my family genealogy from one census to the next. My g-grandfather came over from Ireland in 1847 - his parents and siblings followed about 1848 or 1849 - first to NY and then to MI. In checking the census though, my g-grandfather does not show up on many of them nore his family members. He was an established farmer in MI - but, I truly believe that he "dodged" the census taker. My thoughts on it are that #1, he didn't "trust" the government (after all, they had come from Ireland where there was a lot of problems caused by the government - they were Scotch Presbyterians but they still did not escape the strife over there) and #2, what he had, owned and did were nobody's business but his.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

What approximate percentage of sheriffs or marshals in post civil war nineteenth century owned a horse? I would include those who had a horse provided for them by the organization which sanctioned their office.

I think your question needs some tuning up. Don't forget, there were two kinds of marshals in the "old west." Sheriffs had jurisdiction over the unincorporated areas in counties -- just as they do today. TOWN marshals were appointed locally and had jurisdiction only within the city limits. They were an entirely different entity than U.S. marshals.

Town marshals probably had little need of a horse. Sheriffs probably had a LOT of need. A U.S. marshal might or might not need a horse, depending on where he worked. I've read of U.S. marshals who owned a saddle that they would take with them by train to an assignment, but if they needed a horse they'd rent one locally.

 

[Doc Hoy]

Triple B

Agree.

In other census documents, the officials admit that for every one hundred documents sent out only 20 to 35 were returned. That is true from Virginia to California.