###

When Sophie Szew first downloaded Instagram at her 10th birthday party, she was exposed to a flurry of information that “promoted eating disorders,” she told California lawmakers. By 15, she said, she was following “every starvation regimen recommended” by Instagram’s “explore” page.

Szew, now 20, spoke in Sacramento at a Senate hearing in April in support of an expansive bill making its way through the Legislature. It would hold companies legally responsible for using algorithms and design features that addict young people.

“Standing with me today is a generation that knows all too well what it is like to be harmed by flawed systems,” she said.

The past few years have seen a steady drip of research and reporting about the effects of social media on teens. That has translated into a stream of legislative activity across the country, with several states passing or considering laws that regulate how social media companies do business.

In 2022, when researchers for a nonprofit created TikTok profiles posing as 13-year old girls in the U.S., U.K., Australia and Canada, they scrolled through videos served to them, stopping to watch and like videos about eating disorders, body image, and mental health. They found that TikTok recommended suicide content within 2.6 minutes and eating disorder content within 8 minutes.

In 2021, after a whistleblower leaked documents, the Wall Street Journal reported that researchers at Meta, formerly known as Facebook, found that 32% of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse. Meta owns Instagram..

CalMatters reached out to Twitter, Reddit, Mastodon, TikTok and Meta, which also owns WhatsApp, for comment. Twitter’s press inbox responded automatically with a poop emoji. Reddit, Mastodon, and TikTok did not respond.

In a statement, Meta’s Global Head of Safety, Antigone Davis, wrote that Meta wants teens to be safe online: “We don’t allow content that promotes suicide, self-harm or eating disorders, and of the content we remove or take action on, we identify over 99% of it before it’s reported to us.”

Rachel Holland, a Meta spokesperson, offered information on a variety of features teens and parents can use to shape what young people see, like a setting that makes new teen users less likely to encounter sensitive content, and a feature that nudges teens when they’ve been scrolling through the same kind of content for a while.

What the California bill does

The bill takes aim at how social media companies serve up content to young people under 18. Specifically, it prohibits social media companies from using a design, algorithm, feature, or practice, that companies know (or should know) causes young people to:

• Develop an eating disorder, inflict harm on themselves or others, or become addicted to the social media platform;
• Receive content that facilitates the purchase of controlled substances, like opioids; that facilitates suicide by offering information on how to die by suicide; or facilitates the sale of guns illegally.

It covers social media companies that earn more than $100 million in revenue per year and have users in California. Companies that violate the law could get sued by public attorneys, and would face penalties of as much as $250,000 per violation.

But the bill also builds in a way for companies to protect themselves from lawsuits: By auditing their designs, algorithms, features, and more at least quarterly for their potential to cause the harms listed in the bill and correcting issues within 30 days.

“If you look at a bill like this, the crux of the problem is content.”

— Sophie Cope, Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation

California isn’t the only state where legislators are aiming to regulate social media platforms. In March, Utah’s governor signed a similar bill into law, plus another law that institutes a social media curfew for Utah teens under 18 and requires teens to get their parents’ permission to set up social media accounts. Arkansas also passed a law requiring parental permission for teens to set up social media accounts. State legislators in New Jersey are considering a bill that prohibits social media companies from using features that addict kids, and lawmakers in Minnesota are also mulling a social media bill. Then, there are the bills that would regulate social media with a different aim: Texas passed a law that made it illegal to ban users based on their “viewpoints,” and Florida also passed a law restricting platforms’ ability to ban users.

On top of all the new proposals, there are a bevy of lawsuits ping-ponging their way through the courts that could reshape social media regulation. The Texas and Florida laws were challenged for violating the First Amendment; the Supreme Court will decide their fate. More than 80 cases have been grouped together in one jumbo lawsuit, in which plaintiffs say that the social media platforms are essentially defective products — like an exploding toaster — because they addict children.

California bill could face legal hurdles

If the California bill became law, would it be able to dodge and weave its way through legal challenges?

Tech industry lobbyists, as well as some digital rights advocates and internet law experts, say that the bill would immediately bump up against the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Both outrank or “pre-empt” in lawyer-speak, California laws.

The bill runs afoul of the Constitution because the Supreme Court has generally interpreted the First Amendment as protecting the editorial decisions of publishers, said Sophie Cope, a senior staff attorney at the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation, which opposes the bill. Newspapers decide their layout, what goes on the front page and which images to use, Cope said. Social media platforms are doing similar things as online publishers when they make decisions about how content is displayed, shared, or promoted, she said.

This bill “goes directly at the heart of the editorial discretion of these platforms,” Cope said.

“It’s the First Amendment that restricts the ability of legislators to control the flow of information at children” to the degree legislators might want, agreed Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and an expert on internet law. His example: a Supreme Court case from 1997 about whether a law prohibiting the transmission of porn or “obscene or indecent” messages to kids violated the first amendment. The Supreme Court decided unanimously that it did.

Ed Howard, senior counsel for the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law and a supporter of the bill, disagrees, and argues that the bill doesn’t violate the First Amendment, in part because the algorithms that prioritize what content gets displayed don’t have their own First Amendment rights. And, he said, “there is no blanket immunity to harm people through your speech.”

Then, there’s a federal law that could pose a problem for the California bill. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally protects tech companies from legal responsibility for content posted by users on their platforms. If, for example, someone posts a defamatory review of a restaurant on Yelp, the restaurant owner could sue the poster, but Yelp itself would be protected, said Cope.

So, a key question is whether the California bill is taking aim at features and algorithms that a social media company has designed — for which it may not be protected by Section 230 — or if it’s really requiring platforms to be accountable for content that users upload.

State Sen. Nancy Skinner, an Oakland Democrat who authored the bill, argues that the bill holds companies liable for their own products and practices, so it wouldn’t be preempted by Section 230. Part of the government’s job, she said, “is to protect consumers from harmful business practices. That’s a very classic role of government.”

But, said Cope with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, “if you look at a bill like this, the crux of the problem is content.” The bill is structured to make platforms “responsible for bad content reaching young people,” so the federal law should pre-empt it, she said. The features, in other words, aren’t a problem when they’re showing #vanlife and knitting videos to young users, but when they’re serving up starvation diet tips, they are.

Public may be left in suspense

Last week the bill was sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee and added to a special pile of bills that the committee will analyze for costs and benefits. That pile of bills — known as the “suspense file” — is officially about budget analysis. Unofficially, it’s also a politically expedient place for lawmakers to kill bills without taking any heat. That’s because, unlike other votes that state legislators take, votes on suspense file bills are kept secret. If a bill never makes it out of the special pile, the public doesn’t know whose votes led to its demise.

A version of the bill was introduced last year. No legislator voted against it publicly, but the bill was put on suspense file and died there.

This year’s bill “could suffer that fate,” said Skinner, “but I’m hopeful that the amount of increased awareness, increased evidence and action by other states will hopefully put it in much better shape,” she said.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Steven Blahnik
February 10, 1952 - March 28, 2023

Steven passed away on March 28 at 4:20 p.m. after a short-lived but intense illness.

He was born in Algoma, Wisconsin and graduated from high school in Oregon, Wisconsin. He started the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, playing basketball as in high school until one day in 1972 he was walking across campus and saw it was -70 degrees wind chill factor, and “decided right then and there to move to San Francisco.

In San Francisco Steven worked various jobs, using his bicycle for transportation up and down the hilly city until he went back to Wisconsin to take a long bicycle trip with a friend from Wisconsin to California. Their bikes gave out around Montana so they decided to hop a freight and, luckily, met a railroad yard man who told them exactly what to do to get to San Francisco; how to do it and don’t dilly dally around, just follow instructions by a rail guy they would meet in Seattle. An early 1970s Wisconsin hippy riding the rails!

After arriving back in San Francisco he met his first wife, Simone and had his first child, Eli. They separated after three years and he raised Eli on his own most of the time, working again at various jobs — a handyman, teacher at a preschool and volunteered at an open classroom, until he began carpentry and construction, which would be his life career. At the beginning of his career he met Andre, his new business partner and lifelong friend, who joined him in a multitude of jobs from building a house out of a railroad car to rehabbing the Majestic Hotel on Sutter Street in San Francisco. Steven lived in cooperative housing until a landslide ran right through the building in 1983. A few years after, Steven married Eleanor and had his second child, his daughter Gabriele. They moved to Humboldt, built a yurt and he worked with his new partner, Dan, on many construction projects throughout Southern Humboldt.

After divorcing Eleanor he met his soul mate of 24 years, Kathy Wolff, in 1999 at a grocery store, and together they proceeded to purchase land in Larabee Valley, build a house from scratch, move in sheep, a horse, sometimes pigs and chickens, and live sustainably off the land for the past 21 years. He continued to work construction projects until 2008, when he retired to be a full time farmer. In 2010 he volunteered to take the EMT class to work as a volunteer for STAR (Southern Trinity Area Rescue) and spent many long hours working with STAR as an EMT for 9 years.

Steven loved the Full Moon Drum Circles, had a Wisconsin wit, carved beautiful wood pieces, did special project construction for friends and neighbors, coordinated an all-volunteer crew to replace a much needed residents roof and was an ethical, valuable member of our community. His personal interests ranged from spirituality to metaphysics to baking sourdough bread. Talking of politics and war, he would quote “Everyone should go home and make bread.”

He left behind his loving longtime partner, Kathy Wolff, his sisters Constance and Lisa, his son Eli, his daughter Gabriele, his step sons Ritchie and Charlie, his stepdaughter Crissy, his grandchildren Sabrina, David, Iriana, Ryan and Aidan, his great-grandchildren Kendra and Kendall, his niece Tanya and his nephew Alex.

A celebration of Steven’s Life will be held at Grizzly Creek Campground, Saturday, June 25 at 4 p.m.

###

Eureka needs tourist dollars, especially since the lumber and fishing industries which once financed public works are now barely viable. Trying to see the Old Town from a tourist’s perspective, here are some of my pet kudos and pet peeves: Eureka’s Good, Bad and Ugly.

The Good

Murals! We’ve got great murals—over 100 of them, according to the mural-map (above) on E at 4th, right at the entrance to our newly designated Chinatown. The map also reminds us that we’re on Wiyot land—Jaroujiji, which extended from Little River to the Bear River ridge south of the Eel. Our murals include: Duane (El Pulpo Mechanico) Flatmo’s huge mural celebrating the Arkley Center for the Performing Arts—at 70 ft. high, it’s probably the tallest mural north of San Francisco; Randy Spicer’s “Satchmo” nearby; Blake Reagan’s paean to Billie Holiday on the side of The Speakeasy; Dan Kitchener’s Tokyo-at-Night scene in Opera Alley at H (painted in just a week, freehand); and many, many more.

The Boardwalk, completed in January 2002—giving locals and tourists alike access to Humboldt Bay, complete with a tour boat, M/V Madaket, scheduled to begin service again in mid-May.

Waterfront trails, north and south. The 1.5 mile Hikshari’ Trail running south from Truesdale is currently being extended south which will eventually, ojalá, be part of a future Great Redwood Trail. Meanwhile, the comparatively new trail from Adorni to Target will soon (next year, if all goes well) be the southernmost portion of the entire Eureka to Arcata trail—can’t wait!

The Bad

Visitor Center. You know where it is, right? No? It recently moved to new digs on the Gazebo, but you’d never know it: no sign, no sandwich board outside, no flags, nothing. Everywhere else where there’s a tourist office—everywhere, I swear (Europe, Canada, Mexico, South America, Asia…) you find it by looking for the white lowercase “i” on a blue background. If our local office did have such a sign, it would be swinging from the convenient bar right outside. (I’ve been asking about this for three years now, only to be told, “It’s in the works.”

Militarized Boardwalk. Not really, but do we have to celebrate the fact that our region has several active service men and women? Not all of us supported, or support, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and I suspect many visitors might feel the same.

Madaket Plaza. Last August, 42-ton dolos* #1972 (celebrating the year it was cast) was moved from the old Chamber of Commerce parking lot to the Madaket Plaza, courtesy of Leroy Zerlang, Kernan Construction and North Coast Fabricators (despite the City Council previously giving the nod to its destruction). The day it was moved, the explanatory plaque “dedicated to the seafaring men [sic] of Humboldt—past present and future” was removed to “polish up.” (Couldn’t it have been polished in situ?) Eight months later it’s still being “restored.” (I’m quoting city staff.) This is part of our heritage, and visitors deserve to know what it’s doing there. (If you’re unsure, check out this link).

* Dolos = singular, dolosse = plural. (Afrikaans)

Meanwhile, right next to the dolos, Jack Sewell’s dynamic aluminum sculpture Following Current Events just sits there in its empty pond, not turning as it was designed to do—and as it did for seven years after installation. It’s evolution from a rotating feature to a static blade is a long and complicated story, but in my mind, this is such a tourist draw that the City should be paying to upgrade the pump (if that’s what it takes) and to maintain it. With the infrastructure already there and paid for, this is an opportunity to be seized, rather than a problem to be solved.

While we’re at the plaza, note the six concrete plinths on both sides as you walk in from First Street at C. These used to support local artists’ metal sculptures, but I’m told they were victims of vandalism. So, rather than surrender to idiots how about being proactive? Security cameras? Security guards? Stronger sculptures? Fences?

The Gazebo. Speaking of empty ponds, when’s the last time you saw the water in the stone chute running down from the Gazebo, with its three fountain jets, actually working? They’ve been having problems with the pump, I know, but c’mon guys! This is a worthy feature, and it’s so tacky, not to mention hazardous, when empty. Oh, and benches? Tourists like taking a break from time to time! We used to have a slew of benches in Old Town, but most are now gone (“Homeless people were using them…”—sigh). Put in lots of benches, for our homeless and tourists alike! That’s what grown-up towns do!

Waterfront park. Where? Other cities have created waterfront parks as long-term investments for locals and visitors, and we could do the same. Consider the lovely field at the east end of the boardwalk behind Bayfront One. Yeah it’s privately owned and yeah, it’ll take a lot of money and work, but a park here would beautify Old Town and pay off in appreciation by tourists. Bite the bullet, people! Buy the land, clean it up, plant trees, install trails, picnic benches, a kids’ playground! We lesser mortals will love you for it.

The Ugly

Trees, lack of. For a future column.

Travis Luke Juan, a life-long resident of Hoopa, left us unexpectedly on April 21, 2023 at the age of 40. He was a proud member of the Pima Tribe and was a proud father of his two daughters, Sarah and Lillian Juan of Hoopa.

He was born on April 19, 1983 to Sylvia Carpenter and the late Gary Juan Sr. Travis leaves behind his two daughters, Sarah and Lillian Juan of Hoopa; his mom, Sylvia Carpenter of Hoopa; his brother, Gary Juan Jr.; his other mother, Sherrell Masten and her family, who he loved and adored as his own. He leaves behind his beloved nieces, nephews, great nieces, and great nephews all from Hoopa. He also leaves behind his biological mother, Karen Davis and step-father, Shyanna Davis of Arizona; Brionell and Christina Davis; brothers, John Davis and Broderick Juan of Arizona, and many nieces, nephews.

Travis loved his family and friends very much. He was known to be a very sweet helpful person. All of his family and friends loved his sense of humor and jokes. He is a preceded in death by his son, Travis Juan; his father, Gary Juan Sr.; and step-father, Albert “Scal” Carpenter; his sister, Sumi Juan; his grandmother, Ethel Marlene Allison; and so many other loved ones. There are too many to name.

Honorary pallbearers are Junior Moon, George Moon, Gary Juan Jr., Lil Gary Juan, Frances Colegrove, and Clyde Moon. Pallbearers are Michael Masten, Eugene Masten Sr., Michael “M’s” Masten, Eugene Masten Jr., Tim Casey, Paul White, Dave Villavena, Philip Donahue, Billy Kirk, James McCovey, Jody Jackson, and Koe Smith.

###

###

This week we are honored to welcome Sean Robertson, chief of Humboldt Bay Fire, for a cuppa and a nice natter!

Robertson tells us about what drew him to firefighting as a career, the bureaucratic challenges he and other fire chiefs face these days (recruitment, interdepartmental cooperation, the growing risk of wildfire) and about his upbringing in South Africa during the last days of apartheid. It’s a good one.

Our conversation was hosted, as always, by the fine folks at the Eureka Visitors’ Center. Today’s official teatime snack is Rooibos-Infused Milk Tart. Get down to your nearest fancy food store before they sell out of rooibos.

Click the video above when you’re all set. We’ll wait!

###

Nordic Aquafarms recently announced that it was making a switch: yellowtail kingfish, a fish native to the warm waters of the Pacific, instead of Atlantic salmon. Biologically, the two fish require different environments, with yellowtail needing warmer, saltier water compared to chilly brackish water for Atlantic salmon.

Yellowtail, perhaps better known as hamachi to our Japanese cuisine-loving friends, also has a higher price point than Atlantic salmon, meaning that Nordic can make the same return on fewer fish. These changes will alter the environmental impacts from the project, conceivably for the better, with an anticipated reduction in total energy use, project footprint and freshwater demand. Scott Thompson and Jacki Cassida of Nordic Aquafarms join the show to explain the change. 

###

###

In April of 1889 a tragic set of events were set in motion with the arrival in Eureka of a pretty twenty-three-year-old music teacher. The teacher was Lillie Maud Wilcox, who had been living in Garden Valley, California with her widowed mother.

Miss Wilcox had met John A. Price of Eureka while attending the State Normal School in San Jose several years before. A courtship of several years followed and they were engaged. Due to business matters Mr. Price had to return to Eureka where he helped operate the Bay Stables at Third and D streets.

It was arranged that in April Miss Wilcox would come to Eureka and stay with friends until they could be married and that Mr. Price would pay for the passage of his bride-to-be.

On August 1 Miss Wilcox and Mr. Price were married by the Rev. George M. Sanborne of the First Congregational Church. The bride and groom were members of the church where Miss Wilcox sang in the chorus.

In December of the same year the County Clerk received an apparent routine inquiry from a W.J. Thompson, Jr. of Marysville, Calif. The inquiry was for information regarding the issuance of a marriage license for a gentleman named Price and a lady by the name of Lillie M. Wilcox and if the marriage had taken place.

On February 6,1890 a rejected suitor of the now Mrs. J.A. Price arrived in Eureka. His name was Charles H. Bawden, age 31, who was born in Michigan and after completing his education, migrated to the mother lode country of California. In 1885 he met the late father of Mrs. Price and the two became good friends.

Through Mr. Wilcox he met Lillie and in a short time became engaged to her. They were to have been married in the fall of 1886 but due to lack of employment and an injury to Mr. Wilcox, the wedding was postponed. For the next several years there was a stormy relationship between the two. The engagement was broken and renewed several times. Charles Bawden had become a very jealous, possessive suitor, while Lillie seemed to feel she was not ready to settle down at this point of her life.

During this time Charles Bawden proposed an agreement, with the approval of Mr. Wilcox, Lillie’s father, that he and Lillie enter into a mutual marriage. Lillie agreed to this arrangement and Bawden started supporting her.

This did not stop the bickering and accusations and finally they broke off their relationship. After this, Bawden started to drift from place to place, working when he could but never holding onto a job.

Through friends he heard of Lillie moving to Eureka and of her getting married to a Mr. Price. Using the name of W.J. Thompson, Jr. he wrote the Humboldt County Clerk, inquiring about Lillie. Bawden then went to San Francisco and contacted an attorney. The attorney informed him that he (Bawden) was legally married to Lillie and it would require a court order to set aside the marriage. Bawden later stated that he came to Eureka to obtain a private divorce from Lillie.

###

Arriving in Eureka on February 6, 1890, Bawden checked into the Revere House and took up residency in Room 38. Immediately he started to make inquiries as to where J.A. Price lived and worked. He also inquired into the physical description of Price.

Later he was to say that he was very despondent at this point and rather than cause any embarrassment to Lillie he would kill himself. Bawden further stated that he tried to kill himself with a small pistol he had with him but the gun would not fire.

Bawden did state later that on the first day in town he tried to find the Price home but could not as it was supposedly on the corner of Grant and D Streets but D Street did not go all the way through.

On February 7 at about quarter to seven in the evening Bawden approached the desk clerk, E.G. Kramer, at the Revere House and asked for the loan of a pistol. Bawden told Kramer that he was going out on the town and was going to “see the girls;” that a pistol in his pocket would make him feel more secure. So Kramer gave him a .44 caliber English Bulldog pistol. Kramer told him that the gun was unloaded but should do the job. During the conversation Bawden stated that he was a good shot but had neglected to bring his revolver with him.

At about quarter past seven Bawden stopped at E.H. Barnett’s Gun Shop and bought some cartridges for his borrowed gun.

Price asked a passerby if he would help him and the reply was, “I am a stranger here, ” and went his way.

After the purchase of the cartridges, Bawden walked to the southwest corner of Grant and D Streets. He went up to the Price residence’s front door and rang the bell. Mrs. Price was alone at home except for an eleven-year-old son of her friend Mrs. Baker, and had been sitting at the dining room table writing a letter to her mother. As Mrs. Price opened the front door she was surprised to see Bawden standing there. Bawden put his arms around her and kissed her. He then walked into the room and started to sit down. Lillie told him she expected her husband home any minute for supper. Bawden then said, “All right, I will go.”

As he started to leave, he handed her a letter he had written to her. She took the letter and placed it in her bosom. He then told her to read the letter, adding that he was going to die that night. He then walked outside and said to her, “I’m going to kill myself.” She tried to persuade him not to do it and kissed him. Thinking she had talked him out of it, she started back into the house. At this point Bawden pulled out the pistol to shoot. Lillie, seeing the pistol, ran to him and grabbed his hand, pulling on his hand every time he shot. When a bullet struck her breast she ran towards the gate. Bawden then shot himself in the neck.

So explains Charles H. Bawden about the death of Lillie M. Price.

The young Baker boy was later to testify that several shots were fired and Mrs. Price was fleeing, when he ran home.

At this same time the husband, Mr. Price, had almost reached home. As he was walking he heard shots being fired and heard his wife scream and call his name. Mr. Price then saw his wife run toward him, saying, “I’m shot, I’m killed.” When he reached her she fell into his arms and collapsed.

Meanwhile Mr. Price heard another shot and saw Bawden. As he laid his wife on the sidewalk he saw Bawden, still in possession of his pistol, run by him and he could hear the hammer snapping. Mr. Price grabbed hold of Bawden who threatened to shoot him. Mr. Price then took the gun away from him and threw it into the street.

As Bawden jerked loose from Price, he said, “Let me go, Mr. Price. She was my wife. Poor Lillie.” Price then threw him to the ground, in the street, and tried to hold him.

Price asked a passerby if he would help him and the reply was, “I am a stranger here, ” and went his way.

During the course of the struggle Price got hold of the pistol he had taken away from Bawden and began beating Bawden with it.

Upon hearing the shots, two neighbors, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Rotermund, came upon the scene and took hold of Bawden. Another neighbor, Charles Pratt, helped Mr. Price carry his unconscious wife into the house. Within a few minutes she was dead.

Jackson and Rotermund, after taking hold of Bawden, took him to the City Marshal. While walking Bawden told them that Lillie was his wife by mutual consent and that he loved Lillie and wanted that they should die together.

###

Word quickly spread about the murder through Eureka. Several hundred people gathered at City Hall where Bawden was in an unconscious condition in the City Jail but no mob action took place. Due to his condition Bawden was transferred to the County Jail at the Courthouse that night.

Two days after her death, Mrs. Price was buried. The newspapers estimated the attendance at her funeral between 1,500 and 2,000. The funeral was held at the First Congregational Church, which was at Brett’s Hall, Fifth and E Streets. Due to the large crowd, the sidewalks outside were jammed.

A week after the shooting Bawden was in serious condition from the bullet wound he inflicted upon himself. It took about a month for Bawden to recover from his wound.

On March 17 the preliminary examination of Bawden took place at the County Jail. Bawden was charged with first degree murder in the killing of Mrs. Price. Justice of the Peace Loveland presided. Bawden refused to answer any questions and presented an attitude of stupidity or morose. He would just look at the large crowd that was there and inquire what was going on around him. The only response that he showed was when Mrs. Price’s name was mentioned. Mr. Price, John Rotermund and Sheriff Brown were called as witnesses. Bawden offered no witness and was bound over on a charge of murder, without bail, to Superior Court.

Sheriff T.M. Brown pulled the trap-door lever after the prisoner uttered his last words.

While awaiting Bawden’s trial. Sheriff Brown had to install on the defendant what was known as an “Oregon boot.” This contrivance was manufactured from steel and weighed eighteen pounds. The device was fastened around the ankle and made it impossible for even the strongest man to run. The “boot” was only used when there is a threat that a prisoner would escape or as a safeguard while transporting a prisoner.

Two months after the murder, on April 7, 1890, Bawden was arraigned before Superior Court Judge G. W. Hunter. Bawden asked for a continuance so that he could obtain legal councel. A week later, on April 14, Judge Hunter appointed Ernest Sevier and J.N. Gillett as attorneys for the defense. As the attorneys were appointed by the Court, they would receive no fee. The newspapers at the time commented on this appointment and stated that Bawden would be ably defended.

Three days later, on April 17, Bawden was again before Judge Hunter with his attorneys. Bawden plead not guilty. The The trial was tentatively set for June 9. This date was later changed to June 16, at 10:00 a.m.

Jury selection began on the appointed date. It took all that day and until 2 p.m. of the 17th to select the jury of twelve men. District Attorney Monroe made his opening statement and called Mrs. Wilcox, mother of the victim, as his first witness.There was then a parade of prosecution witnesses which took up the next two days. Two well-known local photographers, J. Wunderlich and Walter Pratt, testified to photographs taken at the scene of the crime. The case went to the jury on the evening of the 19th after evidence was heard from the defense.

On June 21,1890 at 1:30 p.m. the jury returned its verdict of guilty. Upon hearing the verdict, Bawden stated he was “an innocent man and that he would ‘ meet them in heaven,” and was visibly affected by the verdict. June 30 was set as the date of sentencing.

On June 30 Judge Hunter postponed the sentencing of Bawden until July 3.

This delay gave Bawden’s attorneys time to prepare motions for an argument for a new trial.

These arguments were presented on July 3 and 5. After arguments on both sides. Judge Hunter took the arguments under advisement.

###

Superior Court Judge G.W. Hunter presided at the trial and pronounced the death sentence.

On July 8 Judge Hunter ruled that there were no grounds for a new trial. He then pronounced the sentence that any civilized man dreaded to hear. Judge Hunter, passing sentence, stated the following:

Mr. Bawden, when you were brought up for judgment on the 30th of June last, you were informed by the Court of the nature of the charge against you, of your plea of not guilty and of the verdict of the jury that your were guilty of murder in the first degree, and you were asked by the Court whether you had any legal cause to show why the judgment of the Court should not be pronounced against you, and through your counsel these several motions, which I have just been considering, were made and subsequently argued, and have not been disposed of. And it appears to me that no sufficient legal cause has been shown why the judgment of the Court should not be pronounced in this case.

It is a painful duty to perform, and one that comes but seldom to a person in my position during a lifetime.

I feel, however, somewhat relieved of the responsibility on account of the fact that although you were without means to employ counsel, you were defended by two of the members of the bar, ably and well, and they worked as zealously and faithfully in your behalf as though they had been well rewarded for their services. I also feel relieved by having the consciousness myself, that throughout this trial I have done everything possible to secure to you a fair and impartial trial of your case, and wherever a doubt arose in my mind on any question of law that came up for any ruling, as to the admissibility of evidence in the case, I felt it my duty to give you the benefit of that doubt and I decided the question in every instance in your favor. I feel relieved also to know that exceptions were taken to such ruling as were made against you and those exceptions will be presented to the Supreme Court of this state for consideration on appeal, and if any error was committed by me in those rulings, it will be corrected by the higher court.

It is not my desire to review the sad history of this affair, which culminated in a terrible tragedy. It would serve no useful purpose. You were once engaged to the young lady whose life was taken, and had your disposition and conduct been different your life probably would have been prosperous and happy. But were so bitterly jealous, according to your own declarations, that her life with you could have been nothing but miserable. Trouble arose between you; there were bickering and dissertions, and according to your own statements, at your request, your engagement was broken off. You afterwards sought a reconciliation and desired to be taken back, but she refused, and then you uttered those terrible threats that were subsequently carried into execution. In a moment of anger you declared that if she never could be your wife, she should never be the wife of any other man. In this way you separated. You went your way and in time she came to this city, was married, had a pleasant home and to all outward appearance was happy and contented. Nevertheless it must have been apparent to everybody who heard the testimony in this case that during all that time there was a terrible foreboding in her breast. She must have been fearful of some terrible calamity, and when she answered your summons at the door on that dreadful night, and witnessed you standing there before her, no doubt she felt that her time had come, that her fate was sealed. That on her own doorstep, in sight of her husband returning for his evening meal, you fired that shot which took the life of Mrs. Price and then unsuccessfully attempted to take your own. It was for the jury in this case to say whether that shot was accidental or intentional. It was for the jury by their verdict to say whether the fact of your former engagement, of your attachment for her, if you had any, of your unsuccessful and yet almost successful attempt to take your own life, was an extenuating circumstance in the case that would authorize their reducing the punishment from death to imprisonment in the state prison for life.

They were fully and clearly instructed that they were possessed of the discretion if they found an extenuating fact or circumstance in the case, to make the punishment imprisonment for life, and yet they failed to do so.

Under the law, I am neither permitted nor allowed to exercise any discretion under the verdict which has been rendered here. There is but one duty for me to perform, and that is to pronounce such a sentence as will carry that verdict into effect.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that you, the said Charles H. Bawden, be detained in close custody in the prison of this county, and thence be taken, at such time as the Judge of this Court shall by his warrant appoint, to the place of execution, and there be hung by the neck until dead. You will now be remanded to the custody of the Sheriff.

###

The date of September 5 was set by Judge Hunter as the date of execution. Attorneys Sevier and Gillett, still serving without pay decided that there existed grounds for appeal. So on July 15 a stay of execution was asked for and received. An appeal was filed with the State Supreme Court on five different points.

It wasn’t until July 14, 1891 that the Court handed down its judgment. The State Supreme Court ruled that the trial was proper and that Bawden must die.

Meanwhile another legal stumbling block to Bawden’s hanging emerged. During the 1890 session of the State Legislature, a law was passed that made San Quentin the place of all executions.

Noting the change in the law, Bawden’s attorneys filed an appeal with the United States Supreme Court. This appeal took two years and finally the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The Court did hear another case, on the same grounds, from San Francisco County. In that case the appeal was denied.

In May of 1893, over three years after the murder, word was received that the execution was to take place.

On May 19, a new District Attorney, T.H. Selvage, asked the Court to fix the date of execution. Several days later Judge Hunter set July 21 as the execution date.

Still fighting for their client. Attorneys Sevier and Gillett joined with Attorney Frank McGowen to secure signatures on a petition for clemency. By the middle of June the attorneys had 2,000 signatures and filed a bill of exceptions with the Court, in order to postpone the execution.

With a sixty day postponement, Sevier traveled by steamer to San Francisco. He again appealed the case to the State Supreme Court. The Court, after listening to his arguments, refused to hear the case again.

Sevier then having only one recourse open to him, took his petition and appeals for clemency to Governor Markham. The Governor granted Bawden a sixty day stay of execution, in order that he could review the case.

On September 21, 1893, word was received by Bawden’s attorney that the Governor would not interfere with the execution.

Upon receipt of this. District Attorney Selvage again asked the Court for a date of execution. Judge Hunter set the next day, September 22, as the date.

“Gentlemen, a grievous wrong is being done here. Grievous wrong.”
— Charles Bawden

Sheriff Brown immediately contacted R.B. Welsh, a local builder, and had him assemble the gallows in the jailor’s room at the County Jail. This did not take too long as the county had a collapsible gallows that fit the room. This same gallows was used in the execution of a man named Rodgers in 1886.

The gallows, which was approximately ten feet square and five and a half feet high, allowed for a drop of about four feet when the trap door was sprung.

Bawden, upon hearing the news, was very calm and spent his time writing letters. He thanked his attorneys for all their help and wrote the Humboldt Times, professing his innocence.

During his stay in the County Jail, Bawden became fond of Sheriff Brown and thought highly of him, although he knew it was the Sheriff’s duty to carry out the Order of the Court.

###

On the appointed day, approximately fifty people crowded into the execution room and the adjoining office. Another hundred people waited outside, with some trying to see through the windows.

At 1:15 p.m. Undersheriff Ferrill entered Bawden’s cell and read him the death warrant and at its end added his own words, “The execution of Charles H. Bawden was consummated this 22nd day of September 1893.”

After spending some time with his minister, Bawden was led to the gallows at 2:30 p.m. Upon mounting the gallows, Bawden was calm and collective. When asked if he had anything to say, Bawden committed his soul to God and promised to see everyone in the hereafter. He then kissed the Sheriff, minister and attorney on the cheek. Then he stepped over the trap door and held his coat so Undersheriff Ferrill could put the straps on him. Showing no fear, Bawden allowed the black hood to be placed over his head. A few minutes later he asked that the hood be removed so he could speak. Addressing the gathering, Bawden uttered his last words, “Gentlemen, a grievous wrong is being done here. Grievous wrong.” At this last moment of his life, Bawden was still protesting his innocence.

With the hood replaced and the rope around Bawden’s neck. Sheriff Brown clasped him on the shoulder and then quickly stepping away, pulled the trap door lever.

After twenty minutes, attending physician, O.W. Sinclair, checked the hanging corpse and could find no pulse. At the end of a half hour the body was cut down and turned over to the undertaker for burial.

Thus ended the last execution in Humboldt County, and possibly a greater tragedy than Lillie Price’s death.

###

The story above was originally printed in the September-October 1984 issue of The Humboldt Historian, a journal of the Humboldt County Historical Society, and is reprinted here with permission. The Humboldt County Historical Society is a nonprofit organization devoted to archiving, preserving and sharing Humboldt County’s rich history. You can become a member and receive a year’s worth of new issues of The Humboldt Historian at this link.