² Regarding the politicization of women's consumerism see Edwards, Rebecca, Angels in the Machinery: Gender in American Party Politics from the Civil War to the Progressive Era (New York, 1997).Google Scholar Regarding the suffrage campaigns in California see Gullett, Gayle, Becoming Citizens: The Emergence and Development of the California Women's Movement, 1880–1911 (Urbana, 2000), 181–91.Google Scholar Coalitions of various class-based organizations in California were not unique; for a contemporary example in Chicago see Flanagan, Maureen A., Seeing With Their Hearts: Chicago Women and The Vision of The Good City, 1871–1933 (Princeton, 2002), 77.Google Scholar

³ During the 1870s, many state legislatures and major cities throughout the nation began regulating dairies and appointing milk inspectors to protect their milk supplies from peril. On this movement see North, Charles E., “Milk and Its Relation to Public Health,” in A Half Century of Public Health, ed., Ravenel, Mazyck P. (New York, 1921)Google Scholar; Leavitt, Judith Walzer, The Healthiest City: Milwaukee and the Politics of Health Reform (Madison, 1982), ch. 5Google Scholar; Duffy, John, The Sanitarians: A History of American Public Health (Urbana, 1990), 183–85Google Scholar; Meckel, Richard A., Save the Babies: American Public Health Reform and the Prevention of Infant Mortality, 1850–1929 (Baltimore, 1990), 63–65.Google Scholar Los Angeles passed its first law regulating milk in 1874, but this turned out to be of limited consequence because for fifteen years the city council did not establish a means of enforcement.

⁴ For studies of Chicago's milkshed politics see Block, Daniel Ralston, “The Development of Regional Institutions in Agriculture: The Chicago Milk Marketing Order” (Ph.D. diss., UCLA, 1997)Google Scholar and Pegram, Thomas R., “Public Health and Progressive Dairying in Illinois,” Agricultural History 65 (Winter 1991): 36–50.Google ScholarPubMed For a historical perspective on New York see Sally McMurry's study of the “defeminization” of dairying. McMurry, Sally, Transforming Rural Life: Dairying Families and Agricultural Change, 1820–1885 (Baltimore, 1995).Google Scholar For general studies see Pirtle, Thomas Ross, History of the Dairy Industry (Chicago, 1926)Google Scholar and Bateman, Fred, “Improvement in American Dairy Farming, 1850–1910: A Quantitative Analysis,” The Journal of Economic History 28 (June 1968): 255–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For California's dairy history see Santos, Robert L., “Dairying in California Through 1910,” Southern California Quarterly 76 (Summer 1994): 175–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Fielding, Gordon J., “The Los Angeles Milkshed: A Study of The Political Factor in Agriculture,” The Geographical Review 54 (January 1964): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Block, , “The Development of Regional Institutions,” 46–49.Google Scholar

⁶ U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1900. Table 42: Number of Specified Domestic Animals to 100,000 Inhabitants in Certain Cities and Groups of Cities, June 1, 1900, Arranged According to Population.

⁷ See Ordinance No. 16,985, Ordinance No. 19,040, and Ordinance No. 33,669. The city passed 33,669 approximately one month before passing the tuberculin ordinance in 1911. Although all of these regulations severely limited the number of urban cows, individuals were still allowed to keep one cow in the oldest part of the city. Los Angeles City Archives, Erwin C. Piper Technical Center (hereafter LACA).

⁸ These dairies were locateci in Los Angeles County. Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties also supplied small amounts. Officials believed that the extension of alfalfa fields in these latter two would greatly increase their dairy production in the future. Los Angeles City Health Department, Annual Report of the Health Department of the City of Los Angeles (1912): 50–55.Google Scholar

⁹ On the continuity of public health practices see Rogers, Naomi, Dirt and Disease: Polio Before FDR (New Brunswick, 1992).Google Scholar Regarding popular perceptions of the germ theory and its incorporation into every-day household practices see Tomes, Nancy, Gospel of Germs: Men, Women, and the Microbe in American Life (Cambridge, 1998).Google Scholar

¹⁰ The rise of bacteriology as a scientific field in the 1890s led city health departments throughout the nation to establish bacteriological laboratories. See Duffy, , Sanitarians, 194–96Google Scholar; Leavitt, , The Healthiest City, 175–76.Google Scholar In Los Angeles, the city council appropriated $50, and Powers donated his own equipment to set up a lab in the attic of City Hall in 1898. A bacteriologist and chemist shared the space; the former diagnosed disease while the latter tested for food adulteration. See Los Angeles City Health Department, Annual Report of the Health Department of the City of Los Angeles (1904): 21–22.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Meckel, , Save the Babies, ch. 3.Google Scholar

¹² In explaining why so many middle-class women during the Progressive Era found themselves physically unable to breastfeed their children, historian Jacqueline H. Wolf has conjectured that if women had followed their physician's advice on feeding schedules then they would have stop lactating. At the time, however, alternate explanations were offered for this trend ranging from women's selfishness to a belief that modern urban life had caused women's biology to change, making them unfit to engage in this natural activity. Wolf argues that this was a man-made problem, not one of biology. See Wolf, Jacqueline H., Don't Kill Your Baby: Public Health and the Decline of Breastfeeding in the 19th and 20th Centuries (Columbus, 2001), 30–41.Google Scholar An alternate source of human milk, wet nursing, was also in decline during this period. According to historian Janet Golden, one result of female reformers' efforts to keep single women together with their children was the gradual elimination of a major source of wet nurses. Moreover, physicians and middle-class mothers did not necessarily believe that wet nursing provided safe milk. Women were told to constantly monitor their wet nurses to ensure that they ate the “proper” foods and did not imbibe. See Golden, Jane, A Social History of Wet Nursing in America: From Breast to Bottle (New York, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Apple, Rima D., Mothers and Medicine: A Social History of Infant Feeding, 1890–1950 (Madison, 1987).Google Scholar

¹³ Curry, Lynne, Modern Mothers in the Heartland: Gender, Health, and Progress in Illinois, 1900–1930 (Columbus, 1999), 5.Google Scholar Curry's work investigates the intersection between maternalism and public health reform in urban and rural settings, analyzing women's engagement in the politics of social change at the municipal and state levels of government in Illinois. In addition to Curry's work there is a substantial body of literature in existence that details women's use of maternalist strategies to argue for a more prominent place in politics in the Progressive Era. For instance see Muncy, Robyn, Creating a Female Dominion in American Reform, 1890–1935 (New York, 1991)Google Scholar, Odern, Mary, Delinquent Daughters: Protecting and Policing Adolescent Female Sexuality in the United States, 1885–1920 (Chapel Hill, 1995)Google Scholar, and Sklar, Kathryn Kish, Florence Kelley and the Nation's Work: The Rise of Women's Political Culture, 1830–1900 (New Haven, 1995).Google Scholar

¹⁴ By the late nineteenth century, as Stanley K. Schultz's influential study of urban planning describes, material technology had worked its way into the “social vocabulary” of reformers. In his synthesis, however, women played only minor roles in forging this new urban culture. See Schultz, Stanley K., Constructing Urban Culture: American Cities and City Planning, 1800–1920 (Philadelphia, 1989), 16.Google Scholar David Stradling's recent examination of environmentalist reforms during the Gilded Age and Progressive Era locates women at the center of the early antismoke movement. He describes how they used “Victorian ideals of cleanliness, health, aesthetics and morality” to initiate change. But Stradling dismisses women's interest in technology-based solutions, arguing that “conditions in the boiler room and the particular means of abatement did not concern them.” Women, in this study, did not use the language of science to make their case even when it became available. See Stradling, David, Smokestacks and Progressives: Environmentalists, Engineers, and Air Quality in America, 1881–1951 (Baltimore, 1999), 3Google Scholar, 62 and 119–20.

¹⁵ Platt demonstrates how Jane Addams used Alice Hamilton's microbiologie studies to expose “the shame of the slums.” See Platt, Howard L., “Jane Addams and the Ward Boss Revisited: Class, Politics, and Public Health in Chicago, 1890–1930,” Environmental History 5 (April 2000): 194–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Flanagan explores the gendered use of experts in reforming Chicago's environmental ills. She found that female reformers relied on experts to argue for government responsibility and citizen action to ensure the common welfare, whereas male reformers relied on experts to isolate an issue from politics. See Flanagan, , Seeing With Their Hearts, 93–94Google Scholar and 99–100.

¹⁶ Leavitt, , The Healthiest City, 181.Google Scholar See also Miller, Julie, “To Stop the Slaughter of the Babies: Nathan Straus and the Drive for Pasteurized Milk, 1893–1920,” New York History 74 (April 1993): 158–84.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Meckel, , Save the Babies, 81.Google Scholar

¹⁸ On the history of the certified milk movement see Waserman, Manfred J., “Henry L. Coit and the Certified Milk Movement in the Development of Modern Pediatrics,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 46 (July-August 1972): 359–90.Google Scholar In Los Angeles, only one certified dairy existed in 1912: The Arden Certified Dairy. Its delivery routes were limited and it cost 15 cents a quart. See Los Angeles City Health Department, Monthly Report of the Health Department of the City of Los Angeles 1 (October 1911): 1–3Google Scholar; “Report of the Los Angeles County Medical Milk Association,” Southern California Practitioner 26 (January 1911): 44–45.

¹⁹ Leavitt traces the politics of milk regulation in Milwaukee. See vitt, Lea, Healthiest City, ch. 5Google Scholar; Meckel links pure milk debates to infant mortality rates. See Meckel, , Save the Babies, ch. 3Google Scholar; Wolf sheds light on Chicago's attempts to provide pure milk. See Wolf, , Don't Kill Your Baby, ch. 2.Google Scholar

²⁰ For a list of state and federal cases see U.S. Treasury Department. Public Health Reports Issued Weekly by the United States Public Health Service. The Legal Phases of Milk Control (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1929), 3110–16.

²¹ On women's clubs as spaces for the development of a political and social identity see Blair, Karen, The Clubwoman as Feminist: True Womanhood Redefined, 1868–1914 (New York, 1980)Google Scholar; Scott, Anne Firor, Natural Allies: Women's Associations in American History (Urbana, 1991)Google Scholar; Raftery, Judith, “Los Angeles Clubwomen and Progressive Reform,” in California Progressivism Revisited, eds., Deverell, William and Sitton, Tom (Berkeley, 1994): 144–74.Google Scholar

²² For biographical information on Edson see Brakman, Jacqueline R., “Katherine Philips Edson: A Progressive-Feminist in California's Era of Reform” (Ph.D. diss., UCLA, 1988)Google Scholar; Braitman, Jacqueline R., “A California Stateswoman: The Public Career of Katherine Philips Edson,” California History 65 (June 1986): 82–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Katherine Philips Edson,” Pacific Empire Press Reporter (1913), Box 4, folder 253–44, Katherine Philips Edson Papers, Collection 235, Department of Special Collections, University Research Library, University of California, Los Angeles (hereafter KPE Collection).

²³ On Florence Kelley see Sklar, Florence Kelley. Kelley, Florence, Notes of Sixty Years: The Autobiography of Florence Kelley (1926–27. Chicago, 1986).Google Scholar

²⁴ Florence Kelley to Katherine Philips Edson, August 3, 1909, Box 2, folder 253–21, KPE Collection.

²⁵ Edson, Katherine Philips, “A Pure Milk Campaign,” The Federation Courier (September 1910): 21.Google Scholar

²⁶ On the history of boosterism and its impact for Los Angeles see Davis, Mike, City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles (New York, 1990)Google Scholar and Starr, Kevin, Material Dreams: Southern California Through the 1920's (New York, 1990).Google Scholar On the relationship between boosterism and health care in Los Angeles see Deverell, William, “Plague in Los Angeles, 1924: Ethnicity and Typicality,” in Over The Edge: Remapping the American West, eds., Matsumoto, Valerie J. and Allmendinger, Blake (Berkeley, 1999): 172–200Google Scholar, and Baur, John E., The Health Seekers of Southern California, 1870–1900 (San Marino, 1959).Google Scholar

²⁷ Edson to Mrs. Thomas, dated December 30, 1913, Box 1, folder 253–11, KPE Collection.

²⁸ On women's role in the nineteenth-century household see Cott, Nancy, The Bonds ofWomanhood: “Women's Sphere” in New England, 1780–1935 (New Haven, 1977).Google Scholar On the extension of this ideology to justify women's participation in public affairs within the context of “municipal housekeeping” see Flanagan, Maureen A., “The City Profitable, The City Livable: Environmental Policy, Gender, and Power in Chicago in the 1910s,” Journal of Urban History 22 (January 1996): 163–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hoy, Suellen M., “Municipal Housekeeping: The Role of Women in Improving Urban Sanitation Practices, 1880–1917,” in Pollution and Reform in American Cities, 1870–1930, ed., Meiosi, Martin V. (Austiny, 1980): 173–98.Google Scholar On the limitations of this ideology based on class see Stansell, Christine, City of Women: Sex and Class in New York, 1789–1860 (New York, 1986).Google Scholar

²⁹ Edson to Mrs. Thomas, dated January 23, 1914, Box 1, folder 253–12, KPE collection.

³⁰ Rosenau, Milton J., The Milk Question (Boston and New York, 1912), 12.Google Scholar

³¹ In this specific case, Edson was discussing women's participation in suffrage drives. See Edson, Catherine Phelps, “The Present Status,” The Federation Courier (1911): 8–9.Google Scholar

³² See Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature (1905–1909): 1456–57.

³³ Litoff, Judy Barrett, American Midwives: 1860 to the Present (Westport, 1978), 93.Google Scholar

³⁴ Unfortunately the chief health officer did not publish an annual report between 1906 and 1909, thus limiting the comparison that can be made with other cities. See mortality reports in Los Angeles City Health Department, Annual Report of the Health Department of the City of Los Angeles 1904, 1905, and 1911.

³⁵ Edson, , “A Pure Milk Campaign,” 21.Google Scholar

³⁶ Edson, , “A Pure Milk Campaign,” 21.Google ScholarBraitman, , “Katherine Philips Edson,” 79.Google Scholar

³⁷ See Durham, Stella Walker, “The Portland Pure Milk War: The Story of a Victory Won by a City's Housewives,” Good Housekeeping 50 (April 1910): 518–20Google Scholar; Deering, Mabel Craft, “What Any Woman's Club Can Do in Reforming the Milk Supply,” Good Housekeeping 50 (May 1910): 645–46Google Scholar; Flint, William Ruthven, “Clean Milk at Moderate Cost,” Good Housekeeping 50 (June 1910): 765–69.Google Scholar

³⁸ Edson, , “A Pure Milk Campaign,” 21.Google Scholar

³⁹ Los Angeles Express, June 17, 1910; Los Angeles Herald, June 18, 1910; Los Angeles Record, June 17, 1910.

⁴⁰ Los Angeles Express, June 17, 1910; Los Angeles Herald, June 18, 1910.

⁴¹ Los Angeles Herald, June 18, 1910.

⁴² See United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, The Unsuspected but Dangerously Tuberculosis Cow, by Schroeder, E.C., (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1907)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bauskett, Frank N., “The Danger of the Use of Milk From Tuberculosis Cows,” American Homes and Gardens 1 (September 1910): 356–57.Google Scholar Both of these documents included pictures of cows that appeared healthy but were captioned as having tuberculosis.

⁴³ Pritchard, D. G., “A Century of Bovine Tuberculosis 1888–1988: Conquest and Controversy,” Journal of Comparative Pathology 99 (November 1988): 357–99CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Grange, J. M. and Collins, C.H., “Bovine Tubercle Bacilli and Disease in Animals and Man,” Epidemiology and Infection 92 (October 1987): 221–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, Bovine Tuberculosis and Public Health, by Salmon, D.E., (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1904)Google Scholar; United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, Milk and Its Products as Carriers of Tuberculosis Infection, by Schroeder, E.C., (Washington , D.C.: GPO, 1909)Google Scholar; United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, The Dissemination of Disease by Dairy Products and Methods for Prevention (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1910).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See mortality report in Los Angeles City Health Department, Annual Report of the Health Department of the City of Los Angeles (1911). Los Angeles Municipal News, May 8, 1912.

⁴⁵ According to the Los Angeles health department, “The finished tuberculin, therefore, contains no germs but only their soluble products, and is absolutely harmless to healthy animals.” Tuberculin injected into an infected animal raised its temperature a few degrees for a few hours. Once identified, the cow was to be removed from the herd, destroyed and autopsied because the infection could only be proven by a post-mortem exam. See Los Angeles City Health Department, Monthly Report of the Health Department of the City of Los Angeles 1 (October 1911): 2.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ On the history of tuberculin see Feldberg, Georgina D., Disease and Class: Tuberculosis and the Shaping of Modern North American Society (New Brunswick, 1995), 55–80.Google Scholar For more on Pottenger see Pottenger, Francis Marion, The Fight Against Tuberculosis: An Autobiography (New York, 1952).Google Scholar Regarding his opinions on tuberculin see Pottenger, Francis Marion, Tuberculin in Diagnosis and Treatment (St. Louis, 1913).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Los Angeles Record, June 18, 1910.

⁴⁸ Ibid.

⁴⁹ The College Settlement, The Fourteenth Report of Instructive District Nursing for the City of Los Angeles (1911–1912): 13–14.

⁵⁰ Los Angeles Times, June 29, 1910.

⁵¹ Board of Health Minutes, July 5, 1910, LACA.

⁵² Hart, George H., “Dairying in California Compared to the East,” Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of the American Association of Medical Milk Commissions Held at San Francisco, California June 17, 18, and 19, 1915 (Cincinnati, 1916), 56–58.Google Scholar

⁵³ Wolf, , Don't Kill Your Baby, 66.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Los Angeles City Health Department, Annual Report of the Health Department of the City of Los Angeles (1912): 55.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Board of Health, Minutes, July 9, 1910, LACA.

⁵⁶ Los Angeles City Health Department, Monthly Report of the Health Department of the City of Los Angeles 1 (October 1911): 1.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ This was slightly stricter than that advocated by government expert Milton J. Rosenau. He believed that heating milk to 140 degrees Fahrenheit for twenty minutes was sufficient. Rosenau, , The Milk Question, 195.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Los Angeles City Council Minutes, November 28, 1911, LACA. Unfortunately the minutes do not detail the substance of their protest but it does list those who spoke: attorney W.H. Dehn, Mrs. S R.T. Watson, P.H. Nienkanp, Mrs. W. P. Harrel, G.A. Cherry, R.B. Urmston, and Geo. B. Miller. Miller was the president of the Mutual Dairy Association.

⁵⁹ Los Angeles Times, May 24, 1912; Los Angeles Municipal News, May 15, 1912.

⁶⁰ Schlebecker, John, A History of Dairy Journalism in the United States, 1850–1910 (Madison, 1957), 163, 219.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Sobieski came from a family of reformers. Her father's family, the Lemen's of Illinois, had been abolitionists and a few generations later, leaders in the temperance movement. See Sobieski, John, The Life-Story and Personal Reminiscences of Col. John Sobieski, (Shelbyville, 1900), 172–78Google Scholar, 229.

⁶² Los Angeles Examiner, May 24, 1912.

⁶¹ See Edwards, , Angels in the Machinery, ch. 3.Google Scholar Regarding Edson's rhetoric during the 1911 suffrage campaign in California see Gullett, Gayle, Becoming Citizens, 188–90Google Scholar; Braitman, , “A California Stateswoman,” 86.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Edson was born in 1870 in Ohio. Locke was born in 1876 in Iowa. Regarding Locke, see Who's Who in Los Angeles (Los Angeles, 1926–7), Las Angeles Herald, February 14,1933.

⁶⁵ Osteopathy is a sect of medicine that is based on the idea that illness results when the body is out of alignment. It became popular in the late nineteenth century. See Gevitz, Norman, The D.O.'s: Osteopathie Medicine in America (Baltimore, 1982).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ At some point in her career Locke would turn away from socialism, as did other female reformers from this period, but she did not discontinue her efforts for social justice. In 1927, she described her “greatest hobby [as] public service in all that it stands for” and at the time of her death, in 1933, Locke's peers described her as a “well known civic leader.” Who's Who in Los Angeles, 1926–7, and Los Angeles Herald, February 14, 1933.

⁶⁷ Fogelson, Robert M., The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles, 1850–1930 (Berkeley, 1967), 24–25.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Gullett, , Becoming Citizens, 192–200.Google Scholar On the influence of socialist women on mainstream reform movements in California see Sherry Katz, “Socialist Women and Progressive Reform,” in Deverell, and Sitton, , California Progressivism Revisited, 113–43.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See Garrett, Sara G., “The Woman's City Club of Los Angeles,” Out West Magazine (March 1916): 132–33.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ On the role of newspapers in public health campaigns see Ziporyn, Terra Diane, Disease in the Popular American Press: The Case of Diphtheria, Typhoid Fever, and Syphilis, 1870–1920 (New York, 1988).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Los Angeles Municipal News, May 8, 1912.

⁷² Los Angeles Municipal News, May 22, 1912.

⁷³ The Los Angeles County Medical Society was the largest such organization in the state. It had four more “paying” members than Francisco, San. Bulletin of the Los Angeles County Medical Society 42 (January 5, 1912): 3.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ For Edson's, plea see “Communication Regarding Tuberculosis Test,” Southern California Practitioner 27 (May 1912): 236–7Google Scholar; For Hart, Powers, and Pottenger's appeals see Bulletin of the Los Angeles County Medical Society 42 (March 1, 1912); 42 (April 19, 1912); 42 (May 3, 1912); 42 (May 17, 1912).

⁷⁵ Los Angeles Municipal News, April 24, 1912; Los Angeles Municipal News, May 1, 1912; Los Angeles Municipal News, May 15, 1912.

⁷⁶ Los Angeles Examiner, May 19, 1912.

⁷⁷ Los Angeles Municipal News, April 24, 1912.

⁷⁸ Los Angeles Examiner, May 27, 1912. See listing for G. Bloomfield, 435 S. Mathews St. in the Los Angeles City Directory (1913).

⁷⁹ Los Angeles Municipal News, May 1, 1912.

⁸⁰ Los Angeles Municipal News, May 8, 1912.

⁸¹ For a historical analysis of these events see Wolf, , Don't Kill Your Baby, 59–64.Google Scholar

⁸² On the question of precedent see Los Angeles Municipal News, April 24, 1912; May 1, 1912; May 8, 1912; For Pottenger's response see Los Angeles Municipal News, May 15, 1912.

⁸³ Los Angeles Herald, May 25, 1912.

⁸⁴ Los Angeles Municipal News, April 24, 1912.

⁸⁵ Los Angeles Municipal News, May 15, 1912.

⁸⁶ Los Angeles Citizen, May 17, 1912.

⁸⁷ Los Angeles Municipal News, May 22, 1912. These statements appeared in an unsigned article entitled “Edited for Proponents of Ordinance.”

⁸⁸ Los Angeles Examiner, May 19, 1912.

⁸⁹ Los Angeles Municipal News, May 8, 1912; Los Angeles Municipal News, May 22, 1912.

⁹⁰ Los Angeles Citizen, May 17, 1912.

⁹¹ Los Angeles Examiner, May 19, 1912.

⁹² Los Angeles Times, May 24, 1912.

⁹³ The Los Angeles Herald and the Los Angeles Examiner formally supported. The Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles Express expressed no formal opinion.

⁹⁴ Los Angeles Herald, May 21,1912; Los Angeles Herald, May 22,1912; Los Angeles Herald, May 24, 1912.

⁹⁵ Los Angeles Examiner, May 24, 1912.

⁹⁶ Los Angeles Herald, May 23, 1912.

⁹⁷ Records of Election Returns, December 5, 1904–December 8, 1920. LACA. Unfortunately the City Archives does not have a precinct map for this particular election or year nor one that would match from the 1910s or 1920s. Because of this fact, I am unable to make a determination about how the vote broke down by gender, wealth, and ethnicity.

⁹⁸ Los Angeles Times, May 29, 1912.

⁹⁹ “Milk from Sick Cows,” Southern California Practitioner 27 (June 1912): 277.

¹⁰⁰ Los Angeles Municipal News, May 29, 1912.

¹⁰¹ Los Angeles Examiner, May 29, 1912.

¹⁰² Hart, George H., “Tuberculosis,” Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of the American Association of Medical Milk Commissions Held at San Francisco, California, June 17, 18, and 19, 1915 (Cincinnati, 1916), 58.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ See questionnaire from December 1913 from an “Englishwoman” to Edson on the impact of enfranchisement of women. Box 1, folder 253–24, KPE Collection. Edson to Hiram Johnson, April 7, 1914. Box 1, folder 253–12, KPE Collection.

¹⁰⁴ Hart, , “Tuberculosis,” 58.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Los Angeles City Health Department, Monthly Report of the Health Department of the City of Los Angeles 4 (April 1917): 1.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Edson to Hiram Johnson, April 7, 1914, Box 1, folder 253–12, KPE Collection.