The Last Proclamation of Norton I?
Evidence of an Edict That the Emperor Issued 2 Weeks Before His Death But That Was Published the Day of His Funeral — By a Surprising Source
BETWEEN September 1870 and May 1875, the Black-owned and -operated weekly Pacific Appeal newspaper published some 250 of the Proclamations of Emperor Norton — more, by far, than any other single publication. Because the Appeal appears to be the only paper that the Emperor formally designated as his imperial gazette, with a Proclamation published in December 1870, the Proclamations published in the Appeal generally are held to be authentic.
There are signs that Emperor Norton’s role as a regular contributor the Pacific Appeal was secured by his friendship — and, perhaps, political kinship — with the Appeal’s editor and proprietor, Peter Anderson, someone who had been a Black leader and an activist for the Black cause on the Pacific coast since the early 1850s.
The fruitful arrangement between Emperor and editor came to a crashing halt when, in May 1875, the Appeal published a Proclamation — attributed to Emperor Norton — that took aim at a local (white) real estate speculator named Charles Rollo Peters (the father of the famous artist by this name).
Peters sued Anderson for defamation — to the point that Anderson was arrested and briefly thrown in jail. As a condition of dropping his lawsuit, Peters insisted that Anderson publish a complete retraction of the Proclamation attributed to Emperor Norton — and that he drop the Emperor from the Appeal’s pages.
Anderson was in no position, as a Black entrepreneur, to resist Peters’ demands — which he met quickly.
Emperor Norton understood the game Charles Peters was playing — and bore Peter Anderson no ill will for cutting him off.
And, cut the Emperor off Anderson did — at least from his paper’s pages. The California Digital Newspaper Collection (CDNC) has a near-complete set of editions of the Pacific Appeal from the time the paper was established in 1862 until it closed in 1880. And, after the May 1875 libel suit, Emperor Norton gets basically no ink from the paper at all.
:: :: ::
A QUESTION that long has lingered, though…
Did Emperor Norton and Peter Anderson figure out a way to maintain their private friendship — even if, for all public purposes, they needed to be seen as “divorced”?
In his editorial, ”A Retraction,” of 29 May 1875, Anderson wrote that “we take this occasion to retract the said article by Emperor Norton, and forbid him hereafter bringing any thing to our office for publication.”
Did the Emperor continue to consider himself banished from the Pacific Appeal’s offices? Or, at a certain point, did he resume dropping off his Proclamations — if for no other reason that to provide the courtesy of keeping Peter Anderson and the Appeal apprised of his thinking?
The Eureka Lodgings at 624 Commercial Street, where Emperor Norton lived, and the offices of the Appeal, at Sansome and Merchant Streets, were only a couple of blocks from one another. So, it stands to reason that Anderson and the Emperor continued to run into one another in the street. Perhaps even more likely is that the Emp and Anderson — who were on the scene as political observers and activists long before their journalistic association at the Appeal — still saw one another at political gatherings.
As it happens, Peter Anderson fell dead on Kearny Street near Broadway on 17 July 1879.
Which adds interest to an item that appeared on the opposite coast — in a newspaper in Maine, of all places — two weeks after the Emperor’s death on 8 January 1880.
On 24 January 1880, the Portland (Me.) Daily Press published the following:
Reprint of Proclamation of Emperor Norton published posthumously in the Pacific Appeal on 10 January 1880, Portland (Maine) Daily Press, 24 January 1880, p. 4. Source: Newspapers.com
To dispense with the editorial introduction…
Jane Plummer Thurston (1814–1898) was a Maine character of the period. After being widowed in 1860, the Portland-based Thurston became a pamphleteer and sometime lecturer. In 1870, she styled herself “Proprietor of the State of Maine,” going so far as to show up at the statehouse and commandeer the floor for the purpose of auctioning the state to the highest bidder (which, it turned out, was herself). A couple of years later, Thurston upscaled her ambitions, revising her self-declared title to “Proprietor of the United States and Kingdom of Great Britain and Colonies,” which Maine newspapers often abbreviated to “Prop’r U.S. & K. of G.B. & C.” — no doubt, for reasons of both comedy and space.
Jane Thurston’s husband, Henry Thurston, had been a wealthy ship’s captain, in consequence of which she had lived very comfortably during their marriage from 1846 to 1860. But, shortly after Henry’s death, Jane discovered that she had been left with little but the family’s house. In many respects, the “Proprietor” bit was an elaborate extortion scheme to preserve her standard of living and — it must be said — provide for her children. Despite making a nuisance of herself, Jane received considerable sympathy for her plight. She even issued proclamations, which the state’s papers published with some regularity. But, ultimately, no one took her seriously.
All of which to say: It’s not surprising that a newspaper editor in Maine would see a connection between Mrs. Jane P. Thurston, as she signed herself, and the Emperor Norton.
What interests is here, though, is what follows the Portland Press’s introduction — apparently a reprint of an item that recently had appeared in the Pacific Appeal. Unfortunately, it appears that the issues of the Appeal from the relevant time frame, January 1880, have been lost — so, we don’t have the original. But, this shows every sign of being authentic:
On Thursday night Joshua Norton, universally known as Emperor Norton, died suddenly on California and Dupont streets. He was born in London, England, Feb. 4th, 1817, and came to San Francisco in November, 1848, from Valparaiso, Chili. In former years he was a frequent contributor to the Pacific Appeal, and below we give a copy of his latest Proclamation, left by the Emperor in person at this office last week for publication:
PROCLAMATION.
The Congress of the United States must pass an Act declaring the Decree of Norton I. a law of the United States, or it is hereby abolished.
NORTON I.
Given under our Royal Hand and Seal, this 24th day of December, 1879.
L.S., N.I.
The Pacific Appeal was a weekly newspaper that published on Saturdays. The editorial opening “On Thursday night” — with no further qualification — invites the conclusion that the Thursday night in question is the one immediately preceding the date of the newspaper issue where the item appears. That would be the issue of Saturday 10 January — with Emperor Norton having just died “[o]n Thursday night” the 8th.
Saturday the 10th was the day of the Emperor’s funeral and burial.
The significance of publishing Emperor Norton’s “latest Proclamation” posthumously on the day of his funeral and burial is not lost on the Appeal — which seems to understand that, in this context, “latest” probably also means “last.”
The Appeal notes that this Proclamation was “left by the Emperor in person at this office last week for publication.” The Proclamation is dated December 24th, and Emperor Norton wasn’t in the habit of “sitting on” Proclamations; once he issued a Proclamation, he wanted it “out there” ASAP.
But, December 24th fell on a Wednesday in 1879. And, it’s reasonable to guess that the Appeal’s editorial offices might have been closed for a day or two between the 24th and the 26th, with publication of the next issue on Saturday the 27th. So, the Emperor might well have waited until the following week to walk it over.
And, what would “walking it over” have entailed in December 1879? After Peter Anderson’s death in July 1879, the Pacific Appeal moved its offices from 511 Sansome Street (southwest corner of Sansome and Merchant) to 622 Clay Street.
This was even closer to Emperor Norton! The Emperor lived in the 600 block of Commercial Street, between Montgomery and Kearny. Clay Street is parallel to Commercial, a half-block to the north. Walking a Proclamation to 622 Clay — also between would Montgomery and Kearny — have been like walking around the corner.
Of course, the Appeal’s report that the Proclamation was “left by the Emperor in person at this office last week for publication” raises the deeper, earlier questions:
When did Emperor Norton re-start bringing the Pacific Appeal his Proclamations after the debacle of May 1875?
Is Peter Anderson’s death in July 1879 what liberated the Emperor to “renew his addresses” to the Appeal?
Was the Proclamation of 24 December 1879 the Emperor’s first approach to the Appeal since May 1875? If so, was this “return” occasioned by the Emperor’s awareness that his health was failing and that his days might be numbered?
:: :: ::
THE PROCLAMATION itself is notably elemental and understated — a “back to the future” Proclamation, one could say.
Gone is Emperor Norton’s traditional boilerplate promoting himself as “Dei gratia Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico.”
The insistence that Congress “must pass an Act declaring the Decree of Norton I. a law of the United States” [emphasis added] bears a closer look.
The suggestion is that “the Decree of Norton I.” is not a particular decree but, rather, is a category — that any decree of Norton is to be considered a law.
One has the sense here that — after 20 years — the Emperor might have grown weary of issuing comment on particular issues and has decided to pivot to reminding his audience of first principles.
:: :: ::
THE abbreviation “L.S.” below Emperor Norton’s signature is for locus sigilli — Latin for “place of the seal.”
Newspapers, including the Pacific Appeal, occasionally included the bracketed word or phrase [SEAL.] or [Imperial seal.] — or L.S. — to their publications of Proclamations from the Emperor. Assuming that Emperor always delivered his Proclamations with a wax seal, the decision of papers to include a reference to the seal — which they usually did not — probably was down to available space, or because they thought the information was worthy or interesting — or just funny — to mention.
On this occasion, might the Appeal have included the more formal “L.S.” as a sign of respect?
If so, who would have been doing the respecting?
The formal, sober tone of the Pacific Appeal item suggests that it was penned by the paper’s editor — the new editor being William H. Carter, an early proprietor of the paper.
It seems somewhere from possible to likely that the Appeal would not have published Emperor Norton’s Proclamation of 24 December 1879 if the Emperor had not died just beforehand.
And, yet, there are traces of sentiment in what the Appeal did publish.
Let’s assume the item was written by Carter. The simple acknowledgment that Emperor Norton was “a frequent contributor to the Pacific Appeal” is well beyond anything that Peter Anderson was willing or able to put in print in May 1875.
Carter’s informal reference to “the Emperor” suggests that he might have had a soft spot.
He even gives the word “Proclamation” a capital “P.”
To consider…
William Carter and Peter Anderson were part of the same California circle of Black advocates for Black freedom in the second half of the 1800s.
Especially given Carter’s longstanding association with the Pacific Appeal, there’s no question but that Carter was well-schooled in the history of Emperor Norton’s contributions to the Appeal — and in the events of May 1875.
Perhaps Carter was uneasy with the way the Pacific Appeal treated the Emperor in the wake of those events.
Perhaps Carter saw publishing Emperor Norton’s “latest Proclamation” as a small way to bind up old wounds.
:: :: ::
For an archive of all of the Trust’s blog posts and a complete listing of search tags, please click here.
Search our blog...