Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T11:53:39.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Enigma of Meyer Lissner: Los Angeles's Progressive Boss

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2010

Mark H. Stevens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Meyer Lissner was Los Angeles's preeminent municipal political reformer between 1906 and 1913. Yet he was perhaps an enigmatic progressive. His life defied conformity and categorization to specific progressive norms regarding ethnicity, religion, upbringing, and social position. His gift for organization, combined with a keen political intelligence, enabled him to organize a formidable opposition to the Southern Pacific—dominated local political environment. Los Angeles's municipal politics thereafter remained nonpartisan. His political skill won him the praise of his progressive supporters and the scorn of his critics as a “reform boss,” a charge with which they mercilessly pursued him throughout the remainder of his municipal career. Was Lissner a “reformer,” a “boss,” a combination of both, or neither? Do such categories matter, given the reality of Progressive Era urban politics and current trends in writing on the stereotyped struggle between the boss and the reformer?

Type
Essays
Information
The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 111 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bridges, Amy, Morning Glories: Municipal Reform in the Southwest (Princeton, 1997), 3Google Scholar;Shefter, Martin, “Regional Receptivity to Reform: A Legacy of the Progressive Era,” Political Science Quarterly 98 (Fall 1983): 459–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Fairbanks, Robert B., For the City as A Whole: Planning, Politics, and the Public Interest in Dallas, Texas, 1900–1965 (Columbus, OH, 1998), 1, 11–28Google Scholar.

2 DiGaetano, Alan, “Urban Political Reform: Did It Kill the Machine?” Journal of Urban History 18 (Nov. 1991): 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Stevens, Mark H., “Meyer Lissner and the Politics of Progressive Municipal Reform in the City of Los Angeles, 1906–1913” (PhD diss., The Claremont Graduate School, 1995), esp. preface, ch.l.Google Scholar

4 Lissner Address, n.d., 2–3, Box 40, Meyer Lissner Papers, Green Graduate Library Archives, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California [hereafter Lissner Papers].

5 Lincoln Steffens's McClure's series of 1902-1904Google Scholar, published as The Shame of the Cities (New York, 1904)Google Scholarvividly illustrates the Progressive Era image of the boss. Steffens revisited his outlook in The Autobiography of Lincoln Steffens (New York, 1931)Google Scholar. Also worth consulting are standard accounts representing different periods in the political science and historical analysis of urban bossism, such as Zink, Harold B., City Bosses in The United States: A Study of Twenty Municipal Bosses (Durham, 1930)Google Scholar, and Allswang, John M., Bosses, Machines, and Urban Voters, rev. ed. (Baltimore, 1986)Google Scholar.

6 Buenker, John D., Urban Liberalism and Progressive Reform (New York, 1973), 24–25Google Scholar, 27–28, 40–41, 228–29;Teaford, Jon C., “Finis for Tweed and Steffens: Rewriting the History of Urban Rule,” Reviews in American History 10 (Pec. 1982): 133–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar;McDonald, Terrence J., The Parameters of Urban Fiscal Policy: Socioeconomic Change and Political Culture in San Francisco, 1860–1906 (Berkeley, 1986), 276Google Scholar.

7 Feingold, Kenneth, Experts and Politicians: Reform Challenges to Machine Politics in New York, Cleveland, and Chicago (Princeton, 1995), 4–5Google Scholar, 70–72, 75–76, 79–81, 84, 88.

8 Ibid., 28–29.

9 Erie, Steven P., Rainbow's End: Irish-Americans and the Dilemmas of Urban Machine Politics, 1840–1985 (Berkeley, 1988), 1, 6–8Google Scholar, 12–13, 30, 82, 91, 105, 222–23, 250.

10 Issel, William and Cherny, Robert W., San Francisco, 1865–1932: Politics, Power, and Urban Development (Berkeley, 1986), 5–6Google Scholar, 131–68;Bullough, William A., The Blind Boss and His City: Christopher Augustine Buckley and Nineteenth-Century San Francisco (Berkeley, 1979)Google Scholar;Bean, Walton, Boss Reef's San Francisco: The Story of the Union Labor Party, Big Business, and the Graft Prosecution (Berkeley, 1952)Google Scholar.

11 Ethington, Philip J., The Public City: The Political Construction of Urban Life in San Francisco, 1850–1900 (New York, 1994), xiv, 6–7Google Scholar, 8–9, 410, 418; and Ethington, Philip J., “The Metropolis and Multicultural Ethnics: Direct Democracy versus Deliberative Democracy in the Progressive Era” in Progressivism and the New Democracy, ed. Milkis, Sidney M. and Mileur, Jerome M. (Amherst, 1999), 214Google Scholar;Connolly, James J., “The Public Good and the Problem of Pluralism in Lincoln Steffens's Civic Imagination,” Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 4 (Apr. 2005): 125–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 , Ethington, “The Metropolis and Multicultural Ethnics,” 193Google Scholar;Stromquist, Sheldon, Reinventing “The People: The Progressive Movement, the Class Problem, and the Origins of Modern Liberalism” (Urbana, 2006), vii–ix, 3, 7–8, 163–64, 193Google Scholar.

13 Schiesl, Martin J., The Politics of Efficiency: Municipal Administration and Reform in America, 1880–1920 (Berkeley, 1977), 24Google Scholar; and , DiGaetano, “Urban Political Reform,” 42Google Scholar.

14 Holli, Melvin G., Reform in Detroit: Hazen S. Pingree and Urban Politics (New York, 1969), ix, xiii–xivGoogle Scholar;Stevens, Mark H., “The Los Angeles Municipal Conference of 1913: Stemming the Neo-Conservative Tide,” Southern California Quarterly 85 (Spring 2003): 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 For more on Lissner's early life and on Los Angeles politics in his time, see , Stevens, “Meyer Lissner,” preface, ch. 1Google Scholar. See also Clodius, Albert Howard, “The Quest for Good Government in Los Angeles, 1890–1910” (PhD diss., The Claremont Graduate School, 1953), chs. 1–2Google Scholar;Olin, Spencer C. Jr, California's Prodigal Sons: Hiram Johnson and the Progressives, 1911–1917 (Berkeley, 1968), 7–8, 18–19Google Scholar; and Olin, Spencer C. Jr, California Politics, 1846–1920: The Emerging Corporate State (San Francisco, 1981), 56Google Scholar.

16 For an analysis of Southern Pacific's varied operations and their influence, see Orsi, Richard J., Sunset Limited: The Southern Pacific Railroad and the Development of the American West, 1850–1930 (Berkeley, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a general view of California's Progressive Era economy and the politics surrounding it, see Blackford, Mansel G., The Politics of Business in California, 1890–1920 (Columbus, OH, 1977)Google Scholar.

17 On the traditional view of the SP's power:Mowry, George, The California Progressives (Berkeley, 1951), 1–14Google Scholar;McWilliams, Carey, California: The Great Exception (Berkeley, 1949), 178–79, 207-08Google Scholar.

18 , Clodius, “Quest for Good Government,” 10–11Google Scholar, 111;Hutchinson, W. H., “Prologue to Reform: The California Anti-Railroad Republicans, 1899–1905,” Quarterly of the Historical Society of Southern California 44 (Sept. 1962): 175–218Google Scholar; and Schiesl, Martin J., “Progressive Reform in Los Angeles under Mayor Alexander, 1909–1913,” California Historical Society 44 (Spring 1974): 39Google Scholar.

19 Willard, Charles Dwight, Municipal Proceedings of the New York Conference for Good City Government and 11th Annual Meeting of the National Municipal League, April, 1905 (New York, 1905), 98–102Google Scholar;Lissner, Meyer, “Reform in Los Angeles: Retrospective—Prospective,” Los Angeles Herald, Apr. 11, 1909Google Scholar; Statement of Joseph Simons, president of Simons Fruit Company and president of the Democratic County Executive and Steering Committee,Los Angeles Herald, 25, 1910Google Scholar, Lissner Papers;Jacques, Janice, “The Political Reform Movement in Los Angeles, 1900–1910” (MA Thesis, The Claremont Graduate School, 1948), 15Google Scholar;, Clodius, “Quest for Good Government,” 31–34Google Scholar, 38–40, 53–59; and , Schiesl, “Progressive Reform,” 39–40Google Scholar.

20 “Councilmen Wallace and Wren May Be Punished,” Los Angeles Record, Jan. 15, 1908Google Scholar; “Boss Without Crew” and “Why Not Tell The Truth,” letters from “A Fair Deal,”Los Angeles Times, Jan. 22, 1908Google Scholar. For more on Los Angeles's interlocking corporate interests, see “The River-Bed Franchise Steal: An Illustration of How the Franchise-Grabbing Corporations Use Their Political Bureau to Rob the People, Including A History of the Steal,” n.d., Box 45, Lissner Papers; Sworn Affidavit by City Clerk, Harry Leiande, Attesting to His Involvement and Actions, Nov. 22, 1909, Box 45, Lissner Papers;“Turn the Rascals Out,” Los Angeles Examiner, Mar. 29, 1906Google Scholar;Clover, Samuel T., “Well Known Figures of Los Angeles-I,” Los Angeles Graphic, Apr. 14, 1915Google Scholar; Meyer Lissner to Sen. Hiram Johnson, Nov. 29, 1920, Box 12, Lissner Papers;Dumke, Glenn S., “Early Interurban Transportation in the Los Angeles Area,” Quarterly of the Historical Society of Southern California 22 (Dec. 1940): 131–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar;, Clodius, “Quest for Good Government,” 68–69Google Scholar, 74, 75, 78, 83–119;Starr, Kevin, Material Dreams: Southern California through the 1920s (New York, 1990), 48–54Google Scholar; and , DiGaetano, “Urban Political Reform,” 39, 51Google Scholar.

21 On the 1906 “Free Harbor” controversy, see Willard, Charles Dwight, The Free Harbor Contest at Las Angeles: An Account of the Long Fight Waged by the People of Southern California to Secure a Harbor Located at a Point Open to Competition (Los Angeles, 1901), 73–103Google Scholar;Stimson, Marshall, “A Short History of Los Angeles Harbor,” Quarterly of the Historical Society of Southern California 27 (Mar. 1945): 7–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar;Grassman, Curtis E., “The Los Angeles Free Harbor Controversy and the Creation of a Progressive Coalition,” Quarterly of the Historical Society of Southern California 55 (Winter 1973): 445–68Google Scholar;Deverell, William J., “The Los Angeles ‘Free Harbor’ Fight,” California History: The Magazine of the California Historical Society, 70 (Spring 1991): 13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and , Deverell, Railroad Crossing: Califomians and the Railroad, 1850–1910 (Berkeley, 1994), 2–3, 94–95, 109Google Scholar.

22 Russ Avery to Meyer Lissner, Aug. 17, 1917, Box 12, Lissner Papers. Meyer Lissner to Hiram W. Johnson, Feb. 15, 1911, Box 8, Edward Augustus Dickson Papers, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Los Angeles [hereafter Dickson Papers]; M. Lissner to Frank H. Hitchcock, Jan. 20, 1912, Box 8, Dickson Papers;, Jacques, “Political Reform Movement,” 51Google Scholar; and Viehe, Fred W., “The First Recall: Los Angeles Urban Reform or Machine Politics?” Southern California Quarterly 70 (Spring 1988): 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Lissner, Meyer, “Reform in Los Angeles,” Apr. 10, 1909Google Scholar, Box 2, Lissner Papers, repr.Las Angeles Herald, Apr. 11, 1909Google Scholar.

24 Anderson, George Baker, “What the Cranks Have Done: Beginnings of the Movement for A Better Governed City,” Pacific Outlook, June 1, 1907, 9–10Google Scholar;, Mowry, California Progressives, 40–41Google Scholar; and , Olin, California's Prodigal Son, 7–8Google Scholar.

25 For a more thorough analysis of the 1906 Los Angeles municipal election, see , Stevens, “Meyer Lissner,” ch. 2Google Scholar.

26 On the City Club of Los Angeles and the Pacific Outlook, see , Stevens, “Meyer Lissner,” ch. 3Google Scholar.

21 Los Angeles Times, Jan. 14, 1908Google Scholar;Evening Express, Jan. 14, 1908Google Scholar.

28 Meyer Lissner to Ernest F. Simpson, June 19, 1908, Box 1, Lissner Papers.

29 Meyer Lissner to William Howard Taft, Dec. 17, 1908; Lissner to Simpson, June 19, 1908, Box 1; and Meyer Lissner to Robert M. La Follette, Nov. 15, 1909, Box 2, Lissner Papers.

30 Evening Express, Jan. 14, 1908Google Scholar;Los Angeles Times, Jan. 14 and Mar. 5, 1908Google Scholar;, Clodius, “Quest for Good Government,” 559–60Google Scholar; and , Stevens, “The Municipal Conference,” 67Google Scholar.

31 “Meyer Iissner, the Napoleon of Politics,” Pacific Outlook, Jan. 4, 1907Google Scholar;“Martyrdom for Reformers,” Editorial, Pacific Outlook, 1909Google Scholar, clipping in Box 50, Iissner Papers;Los Angeles Express, Apr. 22, 1909Google Scholar.

32 Editorial,“A Little Frank Talk,” Pacific Outlook, Oct. 30, 1909Google Scholar, repr. in Los Angeles Express, Nov. 2, 1909Google Scholar;Willard, C. D., “Is Meyer Iissner a Boss?,” Pacific Outlook, June 18, 1910Google Scholar;Loomis Recorder, July 8, 1910Google Scholar.

33 On Iissner and the reform campaigns of 1909, see Meyer Iissner to E. A. Dickson, Esq., Mar. 5, 1908; Meyer Iissner to William G. Adams, Apr. 3, 1908; Meyer Iissner to S. W. Von Dompselaar, Apr. 23, 1908-all Box 1, Iissner Papers.Iissner, Meyer, “Good Government Victory Address,” Dec. 1909Google Scholar, Box 40, Iissner Papers.Clover, Samuel R., “Meyer lissner's Good Work,” Los Angeles Graphic, May 15, 1909Google Scholar; John M. Allswang, “The Origins of Direct Democracy in Los Angeles and California: The Development of an Issue and Its Relationship to Progressivism,”Southern California Quarterly 78 (Summer 1996): 175–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Stevens, Mark H., “The Road to Reform: The Los Angeles Municipal Elections of 1909, Part I,” Southern California Quarterly 86 (Fall 2004): 197–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Editorial,“Hail to the Chief!” Pacific Outlook, Dec. 18, 1909Google Scholar, Box 40;Los Angeles Record, Dec. 22, 1909Google Scholar, Box 51; GGO News Release, Jun. 14, 1910, Box 16, repr. of “Poison Press Again,” Stockton Daily Evening Record, June 22, 1910Google Scholar, Box 51, Lissner Papers. This press release also appeared as “Able Work of Meyer Lissner on Behalf of Good Government,”hong Beach Press, June 23, 1910Google Scholar;“Good Government Roasts the Times,” WhittierNews, June 23, 1910Google Scholar; and “Political Interest,” Editorial, San Dimas Eagle, June 23, 1910Google Scholar.

35 Los Angeles Times, April 25, June 7, 27, 1909Google Scholar, Box 51; Lissner to Dickson, Mar. 5, 1908; Lissner to Adams, Apr. 3, 1908; Lissner to Von Dompselaar, Apr. 23, 1908, Box 1;, Lissner, “Good Government Victory Address,” Dec. 1909Google Scholar, Box 40, Lissner Papers.

36 Los Angeles Times, August 30, 1909Google Scholar.Reynolds, John F., The Demise of the American Convention System, 1880–1911 (New York, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Meyer Lissner to H. J. Harper, May 8, 1908, Box 1, Lissner Papers;Los Angeles News, June 14, 1909Google Scholar;Los Angeles Herald, June 19, 1910Google Scholar;Los Angeles Times, June 20, 21, 26, 1910Google Scholar;San Pedro News, June 25, Aug. 30, 1910Google Scholar;“Lissner and Unionism,” Pacific Outlook, Editorial, July 23, 1910Google Scholar;Williams, Me, California, 145Google Scholar.

38 San Pedro News, Aug. 8, 13, 1910Google Scholar.Los Angeles Times, July 2, 1910Google Scholar.Los Angeles Spectator, June 30, 1910Google Scholar.

39 Angeles Times, June 25, 27, July 1, 1910Google Scholar;Los Angeles Spectator, Sept. 3, 1910Google Scholar.

40 Santa Monica Outlook, Aug. 6, 1910.Google Scholar

41 Loomis Recorder, May 27, 1910Google Scholar, repr. in Pasadena News, June 2, 1910Google Scholar;“Good Government Organization of Los Angeles News Release,” June 14, 1910Google Scholar, Box 51, Iissner Papers, repr. in Santa Ana Blade, June 20, 1910Google Scholar;Long Beach Telegram, June 22, 1910Google Scholar;Santa Ana Register, June 15, 1910Google Scholar; and other papers.

42 San Francisco Star June 18, 1910Google Scholar;Pasadena News, July 22, 1910Google Scholar;Pacific Outlook, Aug. 6, 1910Google Scholar; and Loomis Recorder, July 8, 1910Google Scholar.

43 Meyer Iissner to Albert H. Elliot, Dec. 17, 1910, Box 2, Iissner Papers.

44 Meyer Iissner to E. in Venice (Calif.)Vanguard, June 7, 1911Google Scholar; Iissner to James A. Anderson, June 10, 1911; Iissner to Max Ihmsen, July 17, 1911, Box 3; Edwin T. Earl to Iissner, Oct. 27, 1911, Box 15; and Charles Dwight Willard to Iissner, n.d., Box 26, Iissner Papers.

45 Meyer Iissner, “Prepared Banquet Remarks to the Good Government Organization of Los Angeles Membership and Precinct Club Workers,” Dec. 17,1909, Box 40, Iissner Papers. Also, Meyer Iissner to Oscar H. Regensburi, Aug. 2,1911, Box 3; Iissner to H. W Brundige, May 10, 1912, Box 4; Iissner to C. H. Whitaker, Nov. 29, 1910, Box 2, Iissner Papers.

46 Meyer Lissner to W J. Mclntyre, Apr. 5, 1911, Box 2; also, Meyer Lissner to W E. Williams, June 10, 1911, Box 3, Lissner Papers.

47 Kraft, James P., “The Fall of Job Harriman's Socialist Party: Violence, Gender, and Politics in Los Angeles, 1911,” Southern California Quarterly 70 (Spring 1988): 43–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Shapiro, Herbert, “The McNamara Case: A Window on Class Antagonism in the Progressive Era,” Southern California Quarterly 70 (Spring 1988): 61–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 , Willard, “Is Meyer Lissner A Boss?” Also, Los Angeles Record, Dec. 22, 1909.Google Scholar

49 Quote in ibid.;Hennings, Robert E., James D. Phelan and the Wilson Progressives of California (New York, 1985), 9–10, 35Google Scholar.

50 Los Angeles Record, July 11, 1912Google Scholar;Los Angeles Herald, July 11, 1912Google Scholar.Stevens, Mark H., “The Week the Experts Came to Town,” California History: The Magazine of the California Historical Society 81 (Jan. 2002): 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Meyer Lissner to E. C. Morse, Dec. 11, 1907, Box 1; Lissner to Ed Greenhood, Apr. 25, 1912; Lissner to John D. Works, Apr. 23, 1912, Box 4, Lissner Papers.

52 Open Letter on Patronage by Meyer Lissner, n.d., Box 3; Lissner to John Mac Vicar, Feb. 16,1911, Box 2, Lissner Papers.

53 Meyer Lissner to I. Block, May 23, 1913, Box 6; Lissner to H. E. Whitaker, Nov. 4, 1911, Box 3, Lissner Papers.

54 Meyer Lissner to Hiram W Johnson, Apr. 4, 1911, Box 2; Lissner to Johnson, June 14, 1911, Box 3; Lissner to J. M. Eshleman, Nov. 20, 1911, Box 3; Lissner to E. T. Earl and H. W. Brundige, July 27, 1912, Box 4; Russ Avery to Lissner, Jan. 20, 1913, Box 12, Lissner Papers.

55 Meyer Lissner to L. A. Watson, Nov. 23, 1912, Box 5, Lissner Papers.

56 Meyer Lissner to Thomas S. Hutton, Apr. 3, 1908, Box 1; Lissner to Robert M. La Follette, Dec. 20,1909; Lissner to H. Schocken, Nov. 29,1910; Lissner to Hiram W. Johnson, Jan. 24, 1911, Box 2; Lissner to Johnson, Jan. 4, 1912, Box 3; Lissner to Johnson, Nov. 26, 1913, Box 6; and Lissner to William Kent, Mar. 8, 1913, Box 5, Lissner Papers.

57 , Stevens, “The Week the Experts Came to Town,” 40–53.Google Scholar

58 Quote in Lissner to Ed.,Milwaukee Sentinel, Aug. 7, 1911Google Scholar, Box 3, Iissner Papers. Also, Iissner to J. S. Conwell, June 11,1913, Box 6, Iissner Papers.

59 Meyer Lissner to A. I. Warren, Feb. 6, 1911, Box 2; Lissner to the City Club of Long Beach, California, July 14, 1911, Box 40, Lissner Papers.

60 Meyer Lissner to J. A. Merrill, Feb. 15, 1911, Box 2, Lissner Papers.

61 , Lissner, “Good Government Victory Address,” Dec. 1909Google Scholar, Box 40; Iissner to Ed.,Milwaukee Sentinel, Aug. 7, 1911Google Scholar, Box 3; and Lissner to Dwight B. Heard, Dec. 29, 1913, Box 6, Lissner Papers.

62 Meyer Lissner to Hiram W. Johnson, Feb. 14, 1911, Box 2; Lissner to Johnson, June 11, 1913, 2, Box 6, Lissner Papers.

63 Meyer Lissner to R. W Burnham, Sept. 8, 1908, Box 1, Lissner Papers.

64 Meyer Lissner to Evelyn D. Armer, Feb. 18, 1911, Box 2; Lissner to Hiram W. Johnson, June 11, 1913; Lissner to Reynold E. Blight, June 5, 1913, Box 6, Lissner Papers.

65 Meyer Lissner to Messrs. Newmire and Morris, June 30, 1912, Box 4, Lissner Papers.

66 Meyer Lissner to R. W. Burnham, Sept. 8, 1908, Box 1; Lissner to W. J. Washbum, Feb. 1, 1911; Lissner to A.I. Warren, Mar. 7, 1911, Box 2; and Meyer Lissner to William L. Keith, Aug.l, 1911, Box 3, Lissner Papers.

67 Quote in Meyer Lissner to Rev. J. Leonard Levy, Nov. 30, 1910; Lissner to H. H. Mayberry, Dec. 23, 1910, Box 2, Lissner Papers.

68 Meyer Lissner to Nathan W. Blanchard, Feb. 7, 1911, Box 2; Address by Meyer Lissner, n.d., Box 40, Lissner Papers;Lissner, Meyer, “The City and Its Wards,” California Outlook, Feb. 27, 1915Google Scholar; and Los Angeles Express, Jan. 2, 1909Google Scholar.

69 Quotes in Meyer Lissner to Ralph Clarkson, Aug. 6, 1906, Box 1, Lissner Papers. Also, Lissner to Clarence L. Harper, Dec. 3,1913, Box 6; Iissner to J. M. Eshleman, July 12,1912, Box 4, Iissner Papers.

70 Meyer Lissner to F. G. Tyrell, June 4, 1910, Box 2; Iissner to George W. Perkins, Oct. 22,1912, Box 5; Iissner to William H. Fuller, June 29,1912, Box 4; and Iissner to Henry C. Keller, Jan. 18, 1911, Box 2, Iissner Papers. Also, Iissner, “Reform in Los Angeles,” Los Angeles Herald, Apr. 11,1909.

71 Iissner, Meyer, “A Record of Individual Opinion: What's the Matter with Los Angeles?” California Outlook. Jan. 11, 1913.Google Scholar

72 Czitrom, Daniel, “Underworlds and Underdogs: Big Tim Sullivan and Metropolitan Politics in New York, 1889–1913,” Journal of American History 78 (Sept. 1991): 536–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and , Stevens, “Meyer lissner,” ch. 1Google Scholar.

73 Johnston, Robert D., The Radical Middle Class: Populist Democracy and the Question of Capitalism in Progressive Era Portland, Oregon (Princeton, 2003), 16–17.Google Scholar