Judge Coon makes a decision, 1857
When Sophie Sherwood was brought before Judge Coon on 19 November 1857, the question before the judge wasn’t whether what she was doing at the time was unlawful, but whether what she was wearing at the time was illegal. He decided that there was no law against a woman wearing men’s clothing—a decision mentioned in several local newspapers at the time.
Though perhaps he should have focused more on Sophie Sherwood herself.
The case was described in the Argus, published in San Francisco, California (unavailable to me). Reprinting the piece, the Sacramento Daily Union may have given it a title that didn’t appear in the Argus, but which sums up what the Argus was most interested in. [Notes: “Many would like to insinuate that the sex have for a long time maintained the right [to wear men’s clothing] as a prerogative” is likely a joke about women being domineering and “wearing the pants in the family.” “Bloomers” were adherents to the loose trousers under skirts that was popularied by Amelia Bloomer.]
“Is Women’s Wearing Men’s Clothing an Offense?” Argus [San Francisco, California] 19 November 1857; repinted in Sacramento Daily Union [Sacramento, California] 21 November 1857; p. 3.
The following report of a singular case is reported in the San Francisco Argus of Nov. 19th:
A strange case came before Judge Coon this morning, and one of some importance. Sophia Sherwood, a remarkably beautiful woman, was arraigned on a charge of having been found disguised in male garments. Officer Salisbury stated that he effected the arrest on Brenham Place, between 11 and 12 o’clock last night; that no disturbance of the peace occurred; was attracted by her good looks as a boy. Officer McCormick was present at the arrest knew the defendant, having met her previously riding on horse-back, in male clothing. H. H. Byrne, appeared for Miss. Sherwood, and admitted all the facts as testified to, but contended that there was no statute law prohibiting the alleged offense; that no law existing constituted the assumption by the sexes of the opposite apparel, an indictable offence. He made a reference to the stage, remarking that actresses in operas or plays, where people to the number of thousands assemble, attracted particularly by the fact that they assume male characters, and exhibit their physique in such attire, would be no more liable to inditment than a female riding on horse-back at night—neither custom being contrary to law. He dwelt on the moral necessity of the passage of some law on the subject, and trusted that the next Legislature would enact some stringent law thereon. The Judge continued the case until to-morrow. The assumption of male garments by females is a very serious matter, although many would like to insinuate that the sex have for a long time maintained the right as a prerogative. If such action in California is not illegal, the ladies ought to stand manfully to their rights. Mr. Byrne says, if it is wrong for females to assume male attire, all Bloomers are answerable, and the present style of female dress, which partakes of the cut of an overcoat, is also illegal. We would advise that this subject be entrusted to the wisdom of the Pacific Congress, being a subject for interesting debate, and if that body cannot arrive at a decision, to leave it to the ladies themselves. The legal question to be decided in the matter is, whether offenses against public morals and decency are not misdemeanors and punishable as such. A man named Brown, who was in her company, was discharged.
As reprinted, the Argus’s editorializing is interesting. The state legislature should decide whether or not women should be legally allowed to wear male clothing; but if they can’t decide, then women should. Women wearing male clothing is an offence “against public morals and decency”—but if the state legislature can’t decide the question, then women should. The matter is apparently of tremendous moral and ethical importance; but if there is no law against it, then women should decide it for themselves. The Argus appears to feel that the matter isn’t actually that important—or that the (moral) women of California will obligingly refrain from wearing male clothing on the street (though not in the theater).
When the case resumed on November 20, Judge Coon made his decision.
“Usurping the —.” San Francisco Bulletin [San Francisco, California] 20 November 1857; p. 3.
A rather fair-looking but infamous young woman, by the name of Sophia Sherwood, was arrested on the night before last, by officers Salisbury and McCormick, for wearing male attire in the streets. She was found promenading Brenham Place, dressed as a man, in company with a William Brown. There was no disorder produced by the presence of the woman, but the officers regarded her appearance in the street in that disguise as a misdemeanor and arrested her. The matter came up before Judge Coon yesterday and to-day, and it became a question whether the assumption of male attire by a woman was punishable under the laws of California. It was conceded that there was no statutory provision against it. It was doubted whether the common law took cognizance of it, and, if so, whether that law was in force and effect in this State. Judge Coon did not decide the points directly; he held that the woman could not be punished under the law of mi[s]demeanor, as there was not that publicity or disturbance of the peace in the case, which were requisite under the law of such offences. He ordered the woman to be discharged.
So, an “infamous” Sophie was “promenading,” which implies an illegal activity which the arresting officers may have suspected but couldn’t prove. That a man was “in her company” also hints at an illegal activity.
Sophie Sherwood appears to have moved from San Francisco to Sacramento after her appearance before Judge Coon. And she turns out to have been a lively person, indeed.
“Police Court.” Sacramento Daily Union [Sacramento, California] 15 December 1858; p. 2.
Sophie Sherwood, alias “Lucretia Borgia,” disturbing the peace, kicking up a row at the “Palace,” on 2d street, found guilty and (time being waived) fined $10 and costs ($30), which was promptly paid. Rosanna Keenan, assault and battery on Ann Woods and Melvina White (two separate charges), at the “Palace,” on Monday night—adjudged guilty, time waived and judgment rendered of $5 and costs in each case, $50 in the aggregate, which was paid. Ann Woods, exhibiting a deadly weapon on the same occasion (a cross action instituted by Rosanna Keenan), acquitted.
“Police Court.” Sacramento Bee [Sacramento, California] 24 February 1859; p. 3.
The case of Sophie Sherwood et al., for fighting, was continued till to-morrow.
“Police Court.” Sacramento Bee [Sacramento, California] 25 February 1859; p. 3.
Sophie Sherwood was found guilty of an assault and battery, and of disturbing the peace.
And all apparently without wearing men’s clothing. Fancy that.
previous: Jenny Brown, salesman, 1857
next: Jane Anderson perplexes Cincinnati, 1858
To “Nineteenth-Century American Children & What They Read”
Some of the children | Some of their books | Some of their magazines
Some works for adults, 1800-1872