This Month in Missouri History

About the St. Louis city-county "divorce"

A big anniversary in the on-going "divorce" of the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County occurred May 9, 1878. That's when the cornerstone for the new county courthouse was laid in Clayton.

This division of the city and county continues to have ramifications even today.

A May, 1890, anniversary involved a petition signed by every wholesale fruit dealer in St. Louis. They opposed a new tariff proposed by then President William McKinley.

Anniversaries of people and events during past Mays include a rich mixture of both the significant and the less-than-crucial.

(Each month, the Missouri History Museum collects stories of historic interest from Missouri's varied past. Young Saint Louis.com then compiles these items for your enjoyment. YSL.com also lists Internet links to broaden your understanding. For more, view www.mohistory.org.)

Cornerstone for courthouse in Clayton

St. Louis County was created as one of five administrative districts of the Upper Louisiana Territory. It was formed just nine years after the Louisiana Purchase and nine years before Missouri got statehood.

The City of St. Louis was 39 years old at the time of the Louisiana Purchase, having been founded in 1764. It was included in St. Louis County.

But, the City of St. Louis was separated from St. Louis County in 1876. City officials strongly objected to what they considered excessive costs associated with development of "non-urban" parts of the county.

St. Louis County Courthouse

One big step that helped make that city-county division permanent was the laying of the cornerstone for the county courthouse on May 9, 1878. That happened in what became the city of Clayton.

A total of 104 acres of forest land was donated by Ralph Clayton and M.F. Hanley.

At the time of setting the cornerstone, the St. Louis Globe Democrat newspaper described the cornerstone as being in an unsightly hole in the center of a forest.

For a compilation of St. Louis County history, you can visit: http://www.mymissourigenealogy.com/mo_county/sl.htm.

Chinese prince visits 1904 World's Fair

Chinese Pavilion

One of the more exotic visitors to the 1904 World's Fair in St. Louis was Prince Pu Lun. He arrived on May 4, 1904, as a representative of the Chinese emperor.

The Chinese pavilion at the Fair was a copy of the summer palace of Prince Pu Lun.

The construction of the pavilion involved sections pre-built in China. The sections were assembled once the pieces got to the fair site. Workers came from China to put the pavilion together.

When the fair closed, the Chinese left the pavilion and its contents to Fair President David R. Francis.

Some of the decorations are housed at Washington University.

For a look at the pavilion, visit http://exhibits.slpl.org/lpe/data/LPE240024069.asp?
thread=240029535.

"Screamin' Eagle" designer is born

Screamin' Eagle at Six Flags in St. Louis

The man who led a revival of wooden roller coasters-including one in St. Louis-was born on May 21, 1907. John C. Allen died in 1979 but not before he had designed and built a host of the distinctive amusement rides.

Among the surviving roller coasters is the "Screamin' Eagle" at Six Flags in St. Louis. The ride was built here in 1976.

Allen didn't take his accomplishments too seriously. He said, "You don't need a degree in engineering to design roller coasters; you need a degree in psychology."

Of course, he was talking about knowing what it takes to scare people without being so scary that they wouldn't ride the roller coaster.

In all, he designed over 25 rides and, according to a brief history, 15 of them remain.

After attending Temple University, he joined the Philadelphia Toboggan Co. in 1934 as a coaster operator. He became president 20 years later.

In addition to designing the rides, he made significant contributions to roller coaster technology.

For a look at six photographs of the Screamin' Eagle in Eureka, Mo., visit www.rcdb.com/ig44.htm.

Key leader of C.O.R.E died

The Congress of Racial Equality (C.O.R.E.) was established in St. Louis. One of the key founding members was Bernice Fisher, a civil rights advocate and union organizer.

She was born in Punxsutawney, PA, Dec. 8, 1916, and died May 2, 1966.

She was one of the first to adopt the idea of non-violent, but "direct action," protests. She became known as the "godmother of the restaurant 'sit-in' technique."

She numbered many St. Louisans among her civil rights associates. The direct actions in St. Louis helped to prepare C.O.R.E. for its national role in the civil rights movement.

Bernice Fisher in 1960

In 1942, when she was a student, she joined to take action against discrimination in downtown Chicago restaurants. Later, she became a labor organizer in St. Louis.

C.O.R.E was founded in St. Louis in 1947. One of its first goals was the integration of lunch counters and restaurants. For 10 years, they participated in weekly sit-ins at various downtown eating establishments.

The Missouri History Museum has a large collection of materials in its Seeking St. Louis African American History exhibits. In the 10th stop on the guided tour, there is a copy of a newsletter from C.O.R.E.

Also, you can access a history of C.O.R.E at: www.core-online.org/History/history.htm.

Local fruit dealers upset by tax proposal President

William McKinley ran into strong opposition from St. Louis to his proposal for higher tariffs on oranges and lemons. A petition signed by every local fruit merchant was forwarded to Washington on May 17, 1890.

The New York Times newspaper took note of the complaint in its issue of May 18.

The story ran under a headline that said "Against M'Kinley's Bill; St. Louis fruit dealers protest against its passage."

President McKinley was seeking to boost tariffs on imported goods in order to protect fledgling American businesses. In the case of oranges and lemons, the bill was to protect Florida and California growers.

But, the St. Louis merchants said the tariff would boost the cost of the fruits by as much as 100 per cent. The petition said, "In our opinion such proposed increase of said tariff is not necessary either for protection or trade of the United States."