Joseph Scott
The following is an independent student report, not directly produced by The Leavey Center for the Study of Los Angeles.
21 April 2003
Brian C. Ernst
Joseph Scott: Upholder of American Justice in Los Angeles
Living a life of service is a commitment to the ideal of helping others, not only willingly, but also through a sense of obligation to duty and citizenship. It is a life sparked by a strong sense of worth, honor and by concepts of the American Dream. Those who take up the mantel of service often do so because they themselves have seen oppression, persecution, and unfair treatment. Such a person also does so because they were loved by family, and learned respect, tolerance, equality, and humbleness through their life experience. Of the founders and contributors to Los Angeles, Joseph Scott best exemplifies a life of service. A self-made man and Irish-Catholic immigrant from England, Scott became a brilliant orator and lawyer, who served the Los Angeles community in multiple capacities for decades. Scott was so involved in his contributions to Southern California that he became known as "Mr. Los Angeles." He served on the Board of Education (1904-1915) and hoped to instill strong morals in the public school system. He also served as a member of the Chamber of Commerce (1907-1918) to promote business and finance in Los Angeles. A gifted orator, Scott gave eloquent and powerful speeches, unafraid to speak his mind and stand up for what he believed was right. People from all walks of life held him in the highest esteem. As a lawyer he upheld the principles of justice and fairness to all.
Scott's reputation, however, was put to the test when the Los Angeles Times building was bombed on October 1, 1910 and he decided to serve on the defense team of the accused. Union men locked in a bitter war with capital. Los Angeles contemporaries in 1910 referred to the bombing as "the crime of the century" which became nationally and internationally known.
Joseph Scott served on the defense team that represented the McNamara Brothers under chief counsel Clarence Darrow. John and Jim McNamara were both staunch unionists and were suspected of the bombing that killed twenty Times employees, and injured at least thirty others. As President of the Board of Education, and President of the Chamber of Commerce, accepting this case jeopardized the reputation of Scott, because General Harrison Otis, owner of the Times, was a proponent of the open shop and was a fierce anti-unionist. Scott participated for the defense in the case, but the defense lost as a result of the McNamara confession, and afterward, Scott went under media assault by the Times because Otis held a vendetta against anyone who supported the McNamaras. Scott sued the Times as a result and successfully won for libel. By serving on the McNamara defense, Scott endured a whirlwind of controversy from 1910 to 1918. As he said himself, "I rode that hurricane for more than eight long years."
Why did Scott take on a case that nearly ruined his career? He had so much to lose yet he took the case anyway. Could his reasons for taking the case reveal a moral foundation that can be applied to contemporary justice today? What life experiences contributed to that moral foundation? The answers are simple as they are complex. Scott, a believer in the American dream and its ideals, took the case because he believed that every man had the right to a fair and impartial defense. Further, he saw in the McNamaras fellow Irish-Catholics, which prompted him to recall his humble roots as a self-made man. His moral foundation and humble immigrant experience prompted him to embrace the American justice system. He held no direct sympathy for the unions the McNamaras fought for, and he never condoned the dynamiting as a means to bring about industrial change. Scott was not a crusader of closed or open shop, but rather, held to the ideal of a fair defense entitled to all. In this sense, he championed the underdog by offering them a fair and capable defense even in the most strenuous and controversial of circumstances.
Born on July 16, 1867 in Penrith, England "Joseph Scott came from a background that helped him to understand not only the needs of his own family but those of others as well." His father was Scotch Protestant and his mother was Irish Catholic. This diverse range of heritage allowed for a unique perspective in Scott's early environment. Scott's father was remarkably tolerant while his mother reinforced respect. Being of Irish descent, Scott knew the suffering of Ireland under British law and oppression. With a sense of religious tolerance from his father and moral guidance from his mother, Scott sought an education at Ushaw College in Durham and later at London University where he completed his degree. By 1889 Scott was ready to leave London, explaining that, "There was no room for a man of my blood and faith in England in those days, no chance at all." Scott recognized that being Irish and being Catholic afforded him no opportunity in England. This is significant, as Scott would fight against Catholic oppression in Protestant-dominated Los Angeles later in his career. Scott's mother, arguably his biggest influence, planted the seeds of American justice and opportunity early on. He later recalled his early days when his mother would rock him to sleep at night singing,
To the West, to the West, to the land of the free;
Where the mighty Missouri rolls down to the sea;
Where a man is a man, if he is willing to toil,
And the Humblest may gather the fruits of the soil;
Where children are blessings and he who has most
Has Aid for his fortune and riches to boast;
Where the young may excel and the aged may rest,
Away, far away, to the land of the West.
It is no surprise then, given Scott's situation in England and the allure of America, that he immigrated. The song itself can be used as a blueprint for Scott's life.
After arriving in America, Scott "toiled" and "humbly gathered the fruits of the soil" working in a paper mill in Massachusetts. Later, Scott made his way to New York and attempted to get into the newspaper business without success. Finally, he became a hod carrier, climbing ladders with a heavy sack of mortar for a meager wage. His big break came after securing a teaching job at St. Bonaventure's College in upstate New York. In 1893 Scott took the advice of his friend, Joseph Doyle, and decided to leave his position as a professor of rhetoric and move to Los Angeles. Once there, he was persuaded by Isidore Dockweiler to pursue a career in law and was admitted to the bar in the April of 1894. On June 16, 1898 Scott married Bertha Roth, daughter of A.B. Roth, an Alsatian Jew. This reinforced Scott's religious tolerance. In an article titled "Joseph Scott, Who Spoke For Justice." Scott recalled, "I come from a persecuted people myself, and I have not much to say for the man and woman who only resent persecution of himself or his or her people. The Jewish people have been misunderstood. Did you ever know how it feels to be misunderstood?"
A Protestant father, a Catholic mother, a Jewish wife, and a humble beginning of toil created a world perspective in Scott that was remarkably tolerant and inclined toward justice. Scott noted, "the flag stands exactly for what the boys and girls in the schools are taught that it should mean - absolute equality under the law for every class of citizen." Scott fully believed in the American justice system in direct opposition and contrast to his experience in England. A man born and raised in the manner of Joseph Scott was inclined to thrive in the American environment and uphold tolerance, equality, and justice. Scott reflected this concept in his behavior involving the Los Angeles Times bombing and his participation of the defense of the McNamara brothers.
The trail of evidence left by the bombing led to the McNamaras and on April 11, 1911 Los Angeles investigator William J. Burns apprehended union members James B. McNamara and Ortie McManigal in Detroit. Burns extracted a confession from McManigal, who implicated James McNamara as the Times bomber and International Bridge and Structural Iron Workers treasurer John J. McNamara as the mastermind. All three were quickly taken to Los Angeles for trial amidst union skepticism and the belief that Burns tampered with evidence. "In Los Angeles the McNamaras were greeted as martyrs by union leaders. Showered with delicacies and flowers, they soon became the most admired prisoners in the country." Socialist groups and pro-unionists adopted the martyr perception of the McNamaras and prepared to embark on the great capitalist battle. Socialist Job Harriman, who had been nominated for Los Angeles mayor at the time of the arrests, agreed to take the McNamara case. Samuel Gompers, leader of the American Federation of Labor, supplied an expert criminal lawyer in Clarence Darrow of Chicago who was also a pro-unionist. Gompers also supplied a sizable stipend for the defense fund and strongly believed in the McNamara's innocence. To round out the defense, "Darrow's other aids were largely chosen to attract local or California sympathy: Joseph Scott, the city's leading Catholic attorney 'whose presence in the case,' as stated by Irving Stone, 'would swing sentiment toward the Irish Catholic McNamaras.'" LeCompte Davis, an experienced lawyer from Kentucky, was head assistant to Darrow in the case. Judge Cyrus McNutt, pro-union, was also added. Interestingly enough, Scott was the only member of the defense team that had no direct pro union ties, or even a public union stance. When the trial opened in the October of 1911, much of Scott's involvement with the case was a mystery to the public. Why was he defending the McNamaras to begin with? He was the President of the Chamber of Commerce and had close ties to the Merchant and Manufacturers Association in the Los Angeles dominated open shop. Later, many years after the case, The Herald and Express Newspaper interviewed Scott in 1952. Scott explained that, "Quite by accident, I became associated with Clarence Darrow, the great Chicago barrister in the historic McNamara case." The article continued, "Defending the McNamara boys was not of my own choosing. In fact, true or not, I was said to have been on the list of their victims." Scott's suspicions were well founded and most likely true. As President of the Chamber of Commerce Scott would have been an ideal target because of this association with the open shop, though no attempt was actually made to take his life.
Though possibly on the death list of the bombers, Scott took the case. "I was on my way to the McNamara cells when the word got around that I would help represent them. My friends pleaded with me to keep out of the case." Word traveled fast in Los Angeles, and people approached Scott, to try to get him not to do it. "'Joe,' one said, 'you're the town's fair-haired boy…please don't do it.' Others echoed similar sentiments. Under a lawyer's oath, the meanest man among us is entitled to a defense. Here was a horrible thing." This simple premise was all that was needed to defend Scott's decision. Union supporters wanted a local reputable lawyer to represent the McNamaras in order to lend credibility to the case, and they found one in Scott. One historian speculated that Scott was selected because he was Irish Catholic and so were the McNamaras. It was commonly thought at the time, as reflected by the newspaper article "Who's Who in the McNamara Case" that, "By allying himself with the defense Scott has sacrificed the support and good-will of many wealthy citizens here who support the Times in its fight on labor." This sacrifice to join the defense cannot be solely explained by the McNamaras being Irish-Catholic or the unions needing a local attorney to add weight to the case. The answer is instead found in Scott's belief of the American legal justice system based on a solid moral foundation.
The first two months of the trial were locked up selecting an impartial jury for the case, which was difficult because everyone in one way or another knew about the Times bombing and union struggle. "The McNamara brothers were union men, heart and soul. But they mistakenly considered violence as an appurtenance." With the McManigal confession the defense of the McNamaras would be difficult at best. Scott relayed this information to the McNamaras in prison, urging them to confess in court in a hope to a death sentence. Speaking with Jim, Scott recalled his confession, "I intended to do some damage - to scare them. That's all. How could I know ink was in those barrels? How could I know that there was a gas main underneath that particular spot?" Until the point of the Times, the McNamara bombing policy had created no fatalities. From 1906 to 1911 millions of dollars in property damage were caused by over 87 bombings throughout the United States. Basing his operations in Indianapolis, McNamara targeted any business that did not employ union members. These bombings were done as part of the new militant campaign under McNamara's union president Frank M. Ryan. In a newspaper building, with gas mains and flammable ink in proximity, an explosion was bound to result in a deadly outcome. Scott urged Jim to confess, who only thought of his brother John's safety and not his own.
After that particular visit with the McNamaras, Scott ran into Darrow who had secured information that the prosecution had found a witness willing to place Jim McNamara at the scene of the crime. Both the defense and prosecution spied on one another, anticipating each other's next move. Darrow asked Scott to again try for a confession. Scott recalled, "A guilty plea might give them a chance at life imprisonment for Jim, a lesser penalty for John." In vain, a confession could not be extracted. Scott then ran into Father Edward Brady, the prison chaplain, and the two men discussed how they would garner a confession. Fr. Brady revealed that he was searching for an old prayer book the McNamaras used to read when they were children. The men had lost their faith, and this prayer book might help. With Scott's aid, the prayer book was found and Fr. Brady spoke again with the brothers. To the defense's delight, Fr. Brady was able to convince the boys to reverse their plea to guilty, resulting in a sentence of life in prison for Jim, and fifteen years for John, both to be served at San Quinten.
On December 2, 1911, the day the McNamaras reversed their plea from not guilty to guilty, the Los Angeles Examiner printed an in depth interview on why Scott took the case. Scott explained, "When a young attorney is sworn as a counselor of the bar of the State of California he obligates himself, among other things, as his bounden duty, 'Never to reject for any consideration personal to himself the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.'" Cleary Scott regarded the defense of the McNamaras in light of his oath, further explaining that when the case was offered to him he was expected not to take it. Prestige was at stake but none of this mattered to Scott. "I believe all who know me best will still believe that my relations to the McNamara case, besides that of my professional duty, have been governed by a desire to show the world the Los Angeles wishes that those indicated shall have every opportunity for a fair and impartial trial." This was clearly a capital case of the highest implication, and Scott wanted to add validity to fair justice in Los Angeles by representing the men. Even after the case, Scott reaffirmed his intentions, "I recognized that the McNamaras were presumed innocent in the eyes of the law and were believed innocent by their friends throughout the country, and that any verdict of "guilty" that was reached without every possible protection being afforded them in their defense, by adequate, competent, and high-minded council would not only mean a miscarriage of justice, but would still further deepen and darken the problems of industrial conditions, and would only intensify the difficulties of the labor situation in this city."
Scott's statements certainly speak for his actions, which reflected his upholdment of American justice by helping to successfully spare the McNamara boys from death. The aftermath of the McNamara case sent shockwaves across the nation. The reversal of the plea to guilty discredited everyone who supported the McNamaras. Labor was shocked, with no one more upset than Samuel Gompers, whom the McNamara brothers told face to face that they were innocent, "I have been grossly imposed upon! It won't do the labor movement any good!" W.W. Robinson speculated that organized labor throughout the United States suffered a twenty-five year setback. Harriman, who had been running for mayor in Los Angeles under the Socialist ticket, lost by a large margin and thus ended socialist hopes indefinitely in Los Angeles politics. Clarence Darrow was implicated in bribery charges toward several jurors but was acquitted, returned to Chicago broke, engaged in giving lectures and eventually returned to law. Judge Brodwell, who oversaw the case, afterward stated, "The D.A could have had J.B. McNamara's plea of guilty long ago if he had been willing to dismiss the case against his brother, but he refused, insisting that the latter was guilty and should suffer punishment." Thus the entire trial, hyped in the battle between labor and capital, had an outcome determined from the beginning. Sufficient evidence was already present to prove guilt, but the defense would not budge unless the death penalty was thrown out, and District Attorney Fredericks would not budge unless punishment had been guaranteed. For Darrow and the defense, the case was a humanitarian endeavor to spare the McNamara brothers' lives. "Gompers himself asked Darrow to accept the job of defending the McNamaras. Darrow, though suspecting that the prosecution's case was airtight, finally gave his reluctant consent. He could resist neither the pressures of organized labor nor the promptings of his own conscience." The McNamaras were saved, and in this sense the defense succeeded, but it was a crippling blow to labor and a resounding victory for General Otis and the open shop.
Though he had been persuaded in part by LeCompte Davis to spare the McNamaras and agree on a non capital punishment sentence, Otis never forgave the lawyers who served on the defense team. One particular target was Scott, whom he lambasted in the Times shortly after the trial during Scott's re-election campaign to the school board. On August 18, 1912, Otis in the Times boomed, "The disgrace to Los Angeles is that Joseph Scott, of this dynamite- murder defense trio, is still a member of the Board of Education." This was the beginning of a barrage of remarks made by Otis publicized in the Times. Scott recalled, "When the McNamara courtroom episode ended he never let up on me. He pilloried me during the four days between the date of the end of the trial and my candidacy for re-election on the School Board, when I managed to be re-elected but by a diminished vote. From that time until I retired from the school board in 1915, he took every occasion to vilify me in the Times."
Despite this vilification, Scott received enough votes to be re-elected to the school board. Cleverly, Scott bided his time in his dealings with Otis by saving every slanderous newspaper article Otis ever printed about him. Knowing California law, Scott built up a libel case and after retiring form the school board he sued the Time-Mirror Company. Scott successfully won the case after the California Supreme Court upheld the verdict on November 8, 1919 in the amount of $47,549.71. Even after wining the case, the feud did not end until Otis' death. Scott recalled, "General Otis died not long after. And with him died, to my knowledge, the era called "personal journalism." The battle was over. The bitterness had gone the way of all flesh. The hurricane had reach the peak of its fury, and not long after, faded down to a whisper."
The years between 1910 and 1919 were the most trying for Scott, and tested his moral integrity and his reputation in Los Angeles. Joseph Scott met the challenge by sticking to his morals, never wavering, never saying an unkind remark to anyone through it all. He upheld the principles of American justice through the McNamara trial and through his battle with General Otis for libel. Such endurance is remarkable and indicative of a life of service because Scott never compromised his beliefs while he continued to help others. During those years Scott continued to serve on the Board of Education, and in the Chamber of Commerce. He continued to give speeches calling for peace in the labor/ capital war. This indicates that he upheld American values because of a strong moral stance developed through his life experience. If life experience shaped Scott's behavior, then his speech at his 50th anniversary for immigrating to America offered an eerie glimpse into the future for Los Angeles. "I tell you men humbly and respectfully I believe we cannot save this nation and we cannot save this generation until we come back to the faith of our fathers, the living, personal God to the little child that lived in poverty in Judea." Scott called for a return to faith and understanding. He continued "There cannot be peace anywhere amongst men, amongst nations, amongst individuals, amongst communities, amongst capital and labor, unless we have men of good will in the spirit of Bethlehem." Here Scott advocated a less religious stance but still conveys the call to "good will" at its very heart. It is not the religious connotation, but the concept of morality and good will that everyone can identify in Scott. Even in his time, Scott recognized that the principles of justice were wavering. The future was in jeopardy if people did not grasp basic moral concepts. This assessment of the situation would ironically translate over the decades into the Los Angeles we now live in.
Today, Los Angeles is the media capital of the world, and creates an aura of individualism and self-absorption. With the rise of mass media, images of violence and immorality have steadily permeated societal values. Further, the media can be used as a platform to slander prominent reputations, causing people of importance to exercise caution in their actions. The life of service in popular culture has been lost to these ideals of selfishness and a lack of risk taking. Justice itself has been affected by this new ideology. Court-appointed attorneys are often incapable of providing a fair and impartial defense that Joseph Scott so reverently upheld because they are not adequately trained and paid. The defense team in the McNamara case knew the brothers were guilty, but did everything in their power to secure a sentence that would spare their lives. Otis and the capitalists called for the gallows, but Darrow, Scott and LeCompte Davis appealed to mercy. Without this capable defense team, a sentence that avoided capital punishment might not have been secured and the McNamaras would have hanged.
In the nation today, there is a seriously problem involving court appointed attorneys chosen to defend capital punishment cases. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been particularly outspoken on the issue: "If statistics are any indication, the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed…Serious questions are being raised about whether the death penalty is being fairly administered in this country. Perhaps it's time to look at minimum standards for appointed counsel in death cases and adequate compensation for appointed counsel when they are used."
The problem is far reaching in its significance. On the Campaign for Criminal Justice Reform the website states, "Under our current criminal justice system, innocent people are being sentenced to die. At the very least, our justice system must guarantee that every person facing a capital charge has access to a competent and experienced attorney." Men and women who face the death penalty in a capital case and who cannot afford their own attorney are at serious risk and susceptible to an unfair trial. Even outside of capital cases, court appointed attorneys often lack skill and are grossly underpaid.
Consulting statistics from the Criminal Defense Investigation Training Council, the range of payment in the nation for appointed attorneys can be anywhere from $20.00 per hour to a high of $75.00, making for an average of $35.00 per hour. Reimbursement for other expenses is not often provided. With a generally low pay rate and the costs of the case also a requirement, its no wonder court appointed attorneys are often under educated and under experienced. To provide a solution, lawyers Butcher and Moore of Texas have asked that the justice system call for indignant council that is competent and capable, ethical and professional, offered incentives to provide for the best defense, guaranteed the resources to provide for proper defense, and to be of the same quality of attorneys found in the private sector. Politics should also be barred as a motive for attorneys to defend indignant cases as a type of career boosting activity. Passing legislation to ensure an attorney of that caliber defends someone who could not regularly pay for top quality services would be difficult. Scott embodied all of the above requirements, but he came from the private sector. Though he was never a court appointed attorney, he took the case based on the conviction that everyone deserves a fair defense, and did so without even establishing a pay rate. He did not request a pay rate, nor did anyone assign him one. Of course, Scott was compensated for his services, but he never made money a defining issue. As for political involvement, Scott gained nothing by taking the case. Scott had said, "I have no regrets for entering this case and certainly no apologies to offer on election day, for I have done nothing but what was my whole duty as I saw it to these unfortunate men."
By looking at Joseph Scott and his involvement with the McNamara case, we see clearly a moral man upholding the principles of American justice. Scott took the case at the risk of his practice and reputation while many lawyers today are concerned with money and winning cases. In some states, judges appoint lawyers from the private sector to defend the indignant, bringing up a huge constitutional storm regarding the sixth amendment. There are not enough trained and competent lawyers who are willing to take on capital cases for the indignant. Court appointed attorneys have the right intention but not enough resources, while the private sector does. Scott provides an example for attorneys and the court-appointed system today. Scott, an immigrant, self-made man, famous orator and leading Catholic Attorney in Los Angeles, took on the biggest case of the era without securing payment, having his reputation outweigh the impending outcome of the case, and by the belief that the McNamaras were entitled the best and most fair defense. Religiously tolerant, and a moralist, Scott took the case not only to defend justice but to affirm that he never had forgotten his roots. In the McNamaras he saw two misguided Irish Catholics who would not have received a fair trial had they been tried in England. In this way, Scott championed American justice and played a vital part in securing non-death sentences for the men. Scott continued to practice law until the very end of his long life, which ended on March 24, 1958. His dedication to morals and human dignity should not be lost on lawyers today.
Lawyers with Scott's commitment to service are a rare breed in this modern era of self-absorption. It is not so much faith and religion, but the principle of American justice itself that has been lost today. If each lawyer still swears the oath to protect the oppressed, then they should carry it out no matter the cost. Perhaps the best solution is to train or encourage competent attorneys from the private sector to take on the underprivileged in their defense. Not because it is a charity case, but because the law of justice demands it. Lawyers in the private sector need to overlook the ramifications of damage to their reputation because of a lost or difficult case. Winning, losing and reputation are not the issues, justice is. If Joseph Scott was to suffer the most turbulent years of his life by taking this case to uphold justice, then more lawyers could at least do the same by looking at Scott's example. This return to the concept of justice and service could make a remarkable difference in securing a proper defense and impartial trial for the oppressed, not only in Los Angeles, but also in the whole of the United States.
Notes
Edward Prendergast, "Joe Scott Story," Los Angeles Herald & Express Newspaper, 8 May 1952, 1. (Nicholas A. Curry. Joseph Scott (1867 - 1958): Mr. Los Angeles- A Life of Service. South Pasadena, CA: The Author, 1996), Volume II.
Sister M. Anita. Weyer, "Joseph Scott: A Life of Service." (Southern California
Quarterly v. 48, 1966), 242.
Weyer, 243.
Weyer, 243.
Joseph Scott. Testimonial Dinner to Joseph Scott: On the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of his Arrival in the United States. California Club. Los
Angeles, 17 December 1939, 31.
Weyer, 244.
"Joseph Scott, Who Spoke For Justice," Joseph Scott Scrapbooks, 1909-1939. (CSLA-10. Charles Von der Ahe Library, Loyola Marymount University), Box 2 1910-1914.
Joseph Scott Scrapbooks.
Remi Nadeau, Los Angeles - From Mission to Modern City. (New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1960), 127.
Remi, 129.
W.W. Robinson, Lawyers of Los Angeles; a history of the Los Angeles Bar Association and of the Bar of Los Angeles County. (Los Angeles: Los Angeles Bar
Association, 1959), 144.
Robinson, 144.
Prendergast, "Joe Scott Story," 8 May 1952, 1.
Prendergast, 1.
Prendergast, 10 Column 1-2.
Prendergast, 10 Column 1-2.
"Who's Who in the McNamara Case," Joseph Scott Scrapbooks, 1909-1939. Box 2 1910-1914.
Prendergast, "Joe Scott Story," 8 May 1952, 10 Column 1-2.
Prendergast, 10 Column 1-2.
Grace Heilman Stimson, Rise of the Labor Movement in L.A. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1955), 380.
Edward Prendergast, "Joe Scott Story," Los Angeles Herald & Express Newspaper, 9 May 1952, 1.
Prendergast, 7 Column 1-2.
C. de Vidal Hundt, "Well-Known Attorney Tells Why He Came to be Allied with McNamara Defense." Los Angeles Examiner, 2 December 1911. Joseph Scott Scrapbooks, 1909-1939, Box 2 1910-1914.
Hundt, 2 December 1911.
Joseph Scott (undated and uncited article), Joseph Scott Scrapbooks, 1909-1939. (CSLA-10. Charles Von der Ahe Library, Loyola Marymount University), Box 2 1910-1914.
Nadeau, Los Angeles, 132.
W.W. Robinson, Bombs and Bribery: The Story of the McNamara and Darrow Trials following the dynamiting in 1910 of the Los Angeles Times Building. (Los
Angeles: Dawson's Book Shop, 1969), 3.
Nadeau, Los Angeles, 133.
Robinson, Bombs and Bribery, 45.
Robinson, Bombs and Bribery, 26.
Stimson, Rise of the Labor Movement in L.A., 393.
Gerald F. Uelmen, "Loyola's Deans in L.A. History." Loyola Lawyer, Winter ed., 1981. (Curry, Nicholas A. Joseph Scott (1867 - 1958): Mr. Los Angeles- A Life of Service. South Pasadena, CA: The Author, 1996), Volume II.
Edward Prendergast, "Joe Scott Story," Los Angeles Herald & Express Newspaper, 13 May 1952, 1.
Weyer, "Joseph Scott: A Life of Service," 247.
Edward Prendergast, "Joe Scott Story," Los Angeles Herald & Express Newspaper, 14 May 1952, 1.
Joseph Scott. Testimonial Dinner, 29.
Scott, 29.
Sandra Day O' Connor, Speech before the Minnesota Women Lawyer's Group, Presented at Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2 July 2001.
The Justice Project, "What's Wrong with the System," (Online Article. Internet. 14 April 2003), http://justice.policy.net/cjreform/wrong/
Criminal Defense Investigation Training Council, "Court Appointed Rates Across the Country." (Online Article, Internet, 14 April 2003),
http://www.defenseinvestigator.com/article3.html
Allan K. Butcher and Michael K. Moore. "Muting Gideon's Trumpet: The Crisis in Indignant Criminal Defense in Texas" (Texas: Committee on Legal services to the Poor in Criminal Matters, 22 September 2000), 1, Photocopied.
C de Vidal Hundt, "Well-Known Attorney," 2 December 1911.
Joseph Scott (undated and uncited article), Joseph Scott Scrapbooks, 1909-1939. (CSLA-10. Charles Von der Ahe Library, Loyola Marymount University), Box 2 1910-1914.
Bibliography
Butcher, Allan K. and Michael K. Moore. "Muting Gideon's Trumpet: The Crisis in
Indignant Criminal Defense in Texas" Texas: Committee on Legal services to the Poor in Criminal Matters, 22 September 2000. Photocopied.
"Court Appointed Rates Across the Country." Criminal Defense Investigation Training
Council, Research Survey. Online Article. Internet. 14 April 2003. Available
http://www.defenseinvestigator.com/article3.html
Curry, Nicholas A. Joseph Scott (1867 - 1958): Mr. Los Angeles- A Life of Service
Volumes I-III. South Pasadena, CA: The Author, 1996.
Joseph Scott Scrapbooks, 1909-1939. CSLA-10. Charles Von der Ahe Library, Loyola
Marymount University.
Nadeau, Remi. Los Angeles - From Mission to Modern City. New York: Longmans,
Green and Co, 1960.
O' Connor, Sandra Day. Address. Speech before the Minnesota Women Lawyer's Group.
Presented at Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2 July, 2001.
Robinson, W.W. Bombs and Bribery: The Story of the McNamara and Darrow Trials
following the dynamiting in 1910 of the Los Angeles Times Building. Los
Angeles: Dawson's Book Shop, 1969.
Robinson, W.W. Lawyers of Los Angeles; a History of the Los Angeles Bar Association
and of the Bar of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Bar
Association, 1959.
Scott, Joseph. Address. Testimonial Dinner to Joseph Scott: On the Occasion of the
Fiftieth Anniversary of his arrival in the United States. California Club. Los
Angeles, 17 December 1939.
Stimson, Grace Heilman. Rise of the Labor Movement in L.A. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press,1955.
Weyer, Sister M. Anita. "Joseph Scott: A Life of Service." Southern California
Quarterly v. 48 (1966): 241-264.
"What's Wrong with the System." The Justice Project, Campaign for Criminal Reform.
Online Article. Internet. 14 April 2003. Available
http://justice.policy.net/cjreform/wrong/
Appendix A:
Notes on Citation:
Since there is very little information published about Joseph Scott, the Loyola Marymount Archive Scrapbook collection was heavily relied upon. Due to the unorganized and informal assembly of the scrapbook, many articles included written citations while others were left unsigned and undated. To compensate, A Manuel for Writers (6th Edition) by Kate L. Turabian was consulted for citations. Where possible, I have included any information on the article and then after it cited the scrapbook in which the article was found. This was done in the endnotes. The bibliography is cited as per the standard format.
The two main collections consulted from Loyola Marymount's Archives and Special Collections were:
1) Joseph Scott Scrapbooks, 1909-1939. Call Number: (Center for the Study of Los Angeles) CSLA-10, Box 2: 1910-1914
The second collection was a spiral bound compilation of photocopies and other texts by Nicholas Curry.
2) Curry, Nicholas A. Joseph Scott (1867 - 1958): Mr. Los Angeles- A Life of Service
Volume's I-III. South Pasadena, CA: The Author, 1996
The library's call number for this volume set is CS71 .S462 1996
Resource Help:
I would like to thank Cynthia and Neil for all their help in Loyola Marymount's Archives Department for helping secure and catalogue Curry's volume set and for all their suggestions regarding this paper.
A transcript of the Testimonial Dinner to Joseph Scott: On the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of his arrival in the United States. California Club. Los Angeles, 17 December 1939, was loaned to the author of this paper, courtesy of Father Al Scott, Our Lady of Refuge Church, Long Beach California. Fr. Scott was remarkably helpful in sharing family heirlooms and clarifying events in his grandfather's life, as was Joseph Scott III. To both I offer my deepest thanks and appreciation for being blessed with their help. Thank you!
I would also like to thank Father Michael Engh, S.J., for providing use of the Southern California Quarterly and the out of print books A History of the Los Angeles Labor Movement and Rise of the Labor Movement in L.A. in consulting information for this report.