The Pioneer Era
The automobile was a primary object for thieves and perfect accessory to crime during the 20th century. However, not knowing what the future held, one early turn-of-the-century contemporary asserted that the coming of the automobile would decrease personal transportation thievery substantially. An early steamer owner and physician asserted in 1901: "When I leave my machine at the door of a patient's house I am sure to find it there on my return. Not always so with the horse: he may have skipped off as the result of a flying paper or the uncouth yell of a street gamin, and the expense of broken harness, wagon, and probably worse has to be met."[1] Of course, stealing a stem car often took some time to heat the boiler, turn the various valves, and start off. Thieves would do much better with internal combustion engine powered vehicles.
The first reported auto theft in The Horseless Age occurred during the fall of 1902, although there seemed to exist some contention as to when the first took place: "H. Clark Saunders, New Brunswick, N.J. writes us that the theft of an automobile mentioned in our last issue[1903] was not the first on record, as Mr. Laurenz Schmalholz, New Brunswick, N.J., while in Trenton, N.J. on the day before the election last November [1902], had his Pierce Motorette stolen from the stables of the United States Hotel, and it was not until late the following day that the machine was found."[2]
1904 Pierce Motorette (courtesy NMAH)
The security of the steamer in particular was noted by early automotive pioneers, who clearly recognized that even their vehicles were far from secure. Of course, just the time to open valves, start the pilot flame and then heat the boiler, and do other manipulations took considerable time. For internal combustion powered vehicles, that was a different story, however. A 1901 article on locking devices for cars stated that: "It is not a safe proceeding to let an automobile stand in the street so that the operation of a conspicuous hand lever will start the vehicle; and it may be said that we are approaching a period where it will not be safe to let a vehicle stand in the street which can be started by any person thoroughly familiar with that particular machine, but without the necessary key or keys. Most manufacturers are recognizing these conditions and are providing means either against accidental starting or both against this and malicious designs."[3]
Apparently steam and electric vehicles were better equipped with locks than their internal combustion powered rivals from that era. Steam-powered vehicles typically had locks that immobilized the throttle, "thereby preventing any possible interference by the over curious meddler”.[4] For example, the Victor Steam Carriage used a particularly complex device that nevertheless did not ensure security:
…a spring actuated catch is employed, which locks the throttle lever, inside the seat, is fastened to a double-armed lever, which occupies a near horizontal position when the throttle lever is in the off position. Inside the seat there is a single-armed lever, the lower part of which stands nearly vertical normally and the upper part which is inclined forwardly. A catch on this lever engages with the one arm of the double-armed lever fastened to the throttle lever shaft and prevents the motion of the latter. The single-armed lever is held in position by a coiled spring. The upper end of the lever bears against the seatboard, and the spring is sufficiently powerful to lift the board when nobody is sitting on it. When anybody sits down when the seatboard is depressed, the spring is extended and the catch released.[5]
Typically electric vehicles came with a key that manipulated a switch, and with one turn, the current to the motor was cut off. Yet the designers of many of the earliest Internal Combustion Engine (ICE)-powered vehicles were cavalier about security. As one illustration, the Winton used a common snap switch mounted to a porcelain base. One could remove the hard rubber handle and carry it along, but it was not usually done, since the switch could be operated without it. Packards featured two push button switches that interrupted the igniter circuit. Ordinarily one of these switches was placed on the kneeboard, and the other in the battery box, which could be locked. The 1901 Hayes-Apperson used: "a switch of their own construction. The contact pieces form arcs of a circle, and over these moves a double-armed flat contact lever swiveling in the center of the circle and held down to contact pieces by a shoulder butterfly screw. This screw can easily be removed and the lever carried along."[6] But if a would-be-thief possessed a lever from one Hayes-Apperson, others could be taken. French vehicles were hardly better in terms of being designed to thwart the unauthorized driver. In a De Dion-Bouton, a slightly tapered plug was used for opening the igniter circuit when turning off the car; this plug could be carried along in the pocket of a dismounted driver. Nevertheless, any button from any De Dion-Bouton would work. But who would suspect anyone from the car-owning aristocracy of the day to possibly covet his neighbor's horseless carriage? The motives of the often suspect chauffeur, or garage owner, were different matters, however.[7]
Aftermarket manufacturers and independent inventors soon got busy developing devices to satisfy the insecurities of a growing number of automobile owners. By 1905 the Auto Lock Company of Chicago began advertising its Oldsmobile Lock, claiming that "it locks everything (even while the motor is running), prevents theft and meddling. Once used, always used."[8] In July of 1909, Orville M. Tustison of Bainbridge, Indiana, patented his "Circuit-Closer," employing a Yale-type lock with mechanical and electrical mechanisms that ultimately served as a spark coil kill switch. Located prominently on the dash board, Tustison's device was only as good as the Yale lock and box that housed the device.[9]
These and other technological devices were also limited by the effectiveness of the local law enforcement of the day. Beginning around 1910, police procedure evolved only gradually, and one might surmise haphazardly, as the car theft problem became increasingly acute. In the best-organized police departments, the report of a stolen car first resulted in an entry into the department's log book. [10] Since there was little, if any, communication among police departments in those early days, standard procedures for exchanging information did not exist, and only rarely were theft reports transmitted to other regions. Therefore, it was normally left up to insurers or vehicle owners to publish and disseminate a reward offer, and get the word out that a particular vehicle had been stolen.
It was the insurance companies who took the early lead on the matter of auto theft. During the summer of 1912 eleven insurance companies formed the Automobile Protective & Information Bureau with the purpose of disseminating material on specific stolen vehicles.[11] Depending on a number of factors, rewards ranged from $25 to $500, and notices were often printed on an 8” x 10” manila card and then mailed to nearby police departments. A woodcut, obtained from a car dealer who had used the image for advertising purposes, was stamped on the "wanted poster" along with such details as the vehicle's color, size of tires, type of headlamps, and whether the vehicle had a windshield. Given the poor roads and durability of early cars, stolen vehicles were initially rarely taken beyond the radius of 150 miles, and thus mailings were confined to the near hinterlands from where the theft had occurred. And while there was the assumption that police would do their honest best to recover the vehicle, such was not always the case.
One can only imagine, then, the consternation of automobilists when they learned that New York City police were neglecting auto theft cases.[12] Indeed, in 1914, according to the District Attorney's office, assigned detectives made no effort to pursue the criminals until insurance companies offered rewards. With that incentive, however, New York police garnered an extra $10,000 to $15,000 when they arrested twelve thieves and recovered twenty stolen cars. The reward system, also led to breaking the first auto theft ring on record. John Gargare, owner of a Lakewood, New Jersey, garage, was indicted on six counts of auto theft in 1914 by the same New York City District Attorney. Gargare and his accomplices specialized in Packards and Pierce-Arrows, demonstrating a preference for high-end vehicles that future professional auto thieves would often imitate.
The failure of local law enforcement to stem the growing tide of thefts resulted in the insurance industry taking the lead. The private sector has remained active to this day in both gathering information on the crime and tracking down the crooks and cars. At the beginning of the Automobile Age insurance policies were typically issued for only fire and damage. A 1910 article in the New York Times commented that “A great many automobilists do not give enough consideration to the theft clause of the floating fire policy. Cars are stolen quite frequently, and it is seldom that the fire insurance companies are able to trace the cars, consequently they are compelled to pay a total loss under the policy.”[13]
Losses became so great that two years later, in 1912, the National Automobile Theft Bureau (NATB) was established as an arm of the National Automobile Underwriters Conference. Supported by member insurance companies, the NATB resulted in a private police force and a nation-wide information bureau that overlapped with governmental authorities.[14] NATB personnel trained police officers and encouraged the standardization of stolen car information. And contrary to the assertions that the auto industry was neglectful of the auto theft problem, in a contentious reorganization of the NATB in 1926, it was A.C.Anderson, GM's General Comptroller, who forcefully brokered the unification of regional insurance interests into what emerged as national agency.[15]
The relationship between the NATB and local police was often tenuous, since the boundary between private and public was being crossed. With a wealth of expertise in matters related to automobile identification and the methods of criminals, NATB agents educated local police with little direct knowledge in these matters, and were active in the establishment of dedicated auto theft investigative units within police departments.[16] Yet just as the police from time to time did not escape charges of lack of motivation and corruption, insurance personnel also were subject to the temptation to personally profit from stolen cars. For example, in 1914 a chauffeur and an insurance adjuster, working together, were accused of making a small fortune in the business of hot cars.[17]
[1] The Horseless Age, (February, 6, 1901), 37.
[2] The Horseless Age, 7(May 1903), 42
[3] “Locking Devices,” The Horseless Age, (January 9, 1901), 19.
[4] The Horseless Age, (February 6, 1901), 37.
[5] Ibid, p.19
[6] Ibid, p.19
[7] On the “chauffeur problem,” see Borg, Auto Mechanics, pp. 13-30. Edwin G. Klein's The Stolen Automobile (NewYork: Lenz & Reicker, 1919) featured a thief dressed as a chauffeur in an unlikely plot that ends in the recovery of the car and a chance romance.
[8] The Horseless Age, volume 12, no. 3 xviii.
[9] U.S. Patent 928,824, July 20, 1909.
[10] National Automobile Theft Bureau, 75th Anniversary 1912-1987 (N.P.: n.p., 1987), p.6.
[11] Fred J. Sauter, The Origin of the National Automobile Theft Bureau (N.P., 1949), p.3. On the history of the NATB, see Articles of Association of the Automobile Underwriters Detective Bureau (N.P.: n.p., n.d.[1917?].
[12] "Allege that Police Work with Automobile Thieves," The Horseless Age, (April 22, 1914), 619.
[13] “Auto Insurance Growing in Favor,” New York Times, April 24, 1910, p. XX5. On the topic of auto insurance, see Robert Riegel, "Automobile Insurance Rates," Journal of Political Economy, 25 (June, 1917), 561-579; H.P Stellwagen, "Automobile Insurance," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 130 (March, 1927), 154-62.
[14] On the early history of the NATB, see National Automobile Theft Bureau: 75th Anniversary, 1912-1987 (N.P., NATB, 1987).
[15] Sauter, p.6. See Constitution and Contract Membership of the National Automobile Theft Bureau (N.P.: n.p., 1928).
[16] NATB, p.22.
[17] “Two Under Arrest Name Auto Thieves,” New York Times, January 24, 1914, p. 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment