USA > California > San Joaquin County > An illustrated history of San Joaquin County, California. Containing a history of San Joaquin County from the earliest period of its occupancy to the present time, together with glimpses of its future prospects; > Part 14
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94
After the conclusion of the public exercises at the stand, a grand barbecue picnic, music, dancing, plays, etc., were the order until eve- ning; and even at night, in Stockton, there were joyful gatherings and public demonstrations.
Following is the substance of Judge Budd's address, as summarized by the Independent:
" Fellow Citizens :- The booming of cannon, the waving of flags, the glad sound of music and the immense concourse of people express more forcibly than I can do it the feeling of the just- ice of the cause which we are here to celebrate. The history of the long struggle of the people against the avaricious grasp of land monopolists
has been a most interesting one. The land monopolist endeavored to wrongfully appropriate the land which the settlers had, by long and patient toil, reclaimed from the barren waste, inaking the " wilderness to bloom as the rose." After settling in their peaceful homes for years, feeling the perfect security which should have been theirs, they were astonished to see a corps of engineers, headed by Colonel Von Schmidt, marking out the lines of a pretended grant, called tlie Chabolla grant, covering the homes of hundreds of settlers in this county. After a struggle involving years of costly litigation, the nujust and fraudulent Chabolla claim was re- moved, and the people rejoiced as they are re- joicing to-day, and they congratulated them- selves that they would never be troubled again, -- that their rights were secure and their homes insured to them free of future molestation.
" But, alas ! there came another. I refer to the grant Los Moquelemos to Andres Pico, cover- ing this very territory. It received the indorse- ment of the District Court of San Francisco, but the United States Supreme Court being then as now free from corruption, repudiated the false claim, and again the people thought they were free from the land monopolists. But they were again mistaken. In 1862 a road received a grant of land to aid its construction from Sacramento eastwardly to Dutch Flat and over the Sierras. They had no shadow of right to build a road in this county, and Congress in granting the land had no thought of giving a grant to build a road here. A contract was drawn up between Charles Mclaughlin, who claimed to be a contractor, with the institution known as the Contract and Finance Company. A company was formed, to which the Central Pacific Company said: 'Give us the bonds which yon expect to steal from the Government and we will give you the land.' When the devil took our Saviour np into an exceedingly high mountain he promised him a large quan- tity of land if he would fall down and worship him. The devil didn't own a foot of land, and had no right to give any away. The Central
99
HISTORY OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY.
Pacific Railroad Company had no more right to give away these lands to Mclaughlin than the devil had, but they obtained a ratification of the contract, and on that McLaughlin obtained a certificate from the General Land Office.
" It was believed by the settlers that the rail- road company had no right to the lands, and they determined again to buckle on their armor for the vindication of their rights. Hon. R C. Sargent first started the fight, followed by other citizens. They appealed to the Secretary of the Interior, who declared that the railroad company had no right to a foot of land in this county. The settlers supposed that finally ended it. They were again mistaken. The power of money is almost omnipotent and it was liberally used in this case. After the case had been fonghit, after the decision had been rendered, after patents to the land had been issued, Secretary Delano re- versed his decision and said the land belonged to the railroad company. Their men were seen among the farmers, actively at work urging the settlers to settle. They proposed to give them only a qnit-claim deed, and they succeeded in inducing many people to take their qnit-claim deed for lands they never owned.
"Mclaughlin then prepared an agreed case. Mr. Newhall, a nephew of McLanglilin, sned Sanger, a brother in-law, and a default was taken. It was appealed to the United States Supreme Court in the hope to get a final decision in the same quiet and secret manner. Judge C. L. Robinson (since deceased,-all honor to liis name!) made the discovery of the manner of the proceedings, and notified the settlers, who agreed to defend the Newhall case and prevent the wished-for judgment by default. Newhall sud denly found he liad more friends than he desired, more advocates for his cause than he wished,- as he was too anxious to be defeated,-and when the decision canie sustaining his title to the land, and with it the title of the hundreds of settlers now living upon the grant, it was to him like a clap of thinnder from a clear sky, filling him with astonishment.
" Itis that decision which we are here to rejoice
over. The vindication of principle is always a fitting subject for rejoicing."
The speaker referred to Hon. S. A. Booker in high terins as a man, the purity of wliose ermine is without stain, who in the considera- tion of justice regards neither friend nor foe but decides for the right. Three hearty cheers were given for Judge Booker. The speaker also eulogized the Representatives of California in Congress as having sympathized with the settlers with unfeigned earnestness from the first. He closed, congratulating the settlers and recommending to all that they rejoice with a great and happy rejoicing and make the welkin ring with their gladness.
THE " MOKELUMNE WAR" of 1883-'84.
This is the title given to an anticipated col- lision- which did not came to pass-between Sheriff Cunningham and the ranchers of the disputed Mokelumne grant referred to on a preceding page. The sheriff's writ was to attach some grain that had been harvested and threshed on several ranches. Expecting that there might be trouble, the sheriff wisely pre-engaged a military force, namely the Stockton and Emmett Gnards. These companies, under Brigadier- General James A. Shepherd, upon whom the requisition was made, left Stockton as early as 4 o'clock on the morning of July 9, 1884, for the ranch of C. K. Bailey. Mr. Cunningham arrived on the ground ahead of the military and found about sixty men on the Bailey and Car- penter ranchi, where 250 sacks of wheat were piled up, and was the first to announce that the militia were coming; and this had the immediate effect of causing the settlers to withdraw. The settlers had inade arrangements to have 100 of their number on the ground to resist the sheriff's execution; but, finding that that officer had made arrangements for the State militia to assist him and that they were actually approaching, they concluded that they had best allow the law to take its course. They had occupied these farms two seasons.
On the evening of the same day President
L. C.
100
HISTORY OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY.
Lynch and Secretary Hurlbert, of the Settlers' League, came to Stockton for the purpose of consulting the attorneys of the plaintiff, Good- win, in regard to compromise. The settlers proposed to give up one-fourth of the crop on the Murray place and also one-fourth on the four quarter-sections under attachment in the Good- win suit against Bailey; but this proposition was not agreed to. Other propositions were also made, but all refused.
The militia remained in camp on the ground about ten days, with no prospect of being called into action, and were the subject of inany news- paper jokes and even of humorons poetry. The very next day after their first arrival on the " battle ground," a rich burlesque in rhyme ap- peared in the Independent. Indeed, many amusing incidents occurred, all the more enjoy- able because there was so little prospect of blood- shed, the peaceful termination of the matter being due to Cunningham's style of doing business.
COURT-HOUSE SQUARE.
The early history of the county relating to boundary lines and first election of officers is given in Chapter V. The first order of the Court of Sessions found in Minute Book " A," Court of Sessions, Civil, page 1, and dated June 3, 1850, is as follows:
" It is ordered that notification be given to Charles M. Weber, Esq., that this court is now in session and prepared and ready to receive any communication from him relating to or concern- ing any donation from him to the county of San Joaquin, of lands for the erection of public buildings for the use of the county, and there- upon notification was placed in the hands of the sheriff."
A further order was made as follows:
" Ordered that the sheriff of the county of San Joaquin be, and is, hereby authorized to re- ceive for and on behalf of the county aforesaid, livery of seisin and formal possession of any and all lands and tenements that may be donated to this county."
Afterward, on June 25, 1850, under the pro-
visions of act of April 10, 1850, page 176, thie following order was entered:
"It is ordered that one-quarter of one per cent. be assessed on each $100 worth of taxable property, for the purpose of erecting a court- house," etc .- Court of Sessions, Book " A," pape 6.
The city of Stockton, in the county of San Joaquin, was incorporated under general statute by decree of court, about July 23, 1850. The order recites that the town is incorporated by the name of the City of Stockton, and fixes thie boundaries. It was further ordered that that council consist of seven members, and that notice be given of an election to be held August 1, 1850. On the 5th of August, 1850, the of- ficers elected assembled at the Masonic lodge rooms and organized the city government, as noted in Chapter IV of this volume.
The county and city governments having been organized, a question was raised whether the Court of Sessions, having abont the same control over county affairs as the Board of Supervisors now have, could take in trust for the county a donation of land. Whether right or wrong, it was decided to deed to the mayor, recorder and common council of the city of Stockton, as trustees; and on December 26, 1851, Charles M. Weber duly acknowledged a deed, the date of which was August 28, 1850, to the mayor, recorder and common council, re- citing, " For and in consideration of the public convenience and other good considerations, * * * doth give, grant, alien, enfeoff and confirin block No. 3, east of Centre street, in said city, said block being intended by the grantor as the location of the county court- house, and for the erection of such other public buildings as may be deemed advisable by the proper authorities."
After this the county and city authorities jointly erected a court-house and city hall, and paid equally for the same, in all about $80,000. This court-house was finished early in 1854.
Some question having arisen in regard to the respective rights of the city and county in and
101
HISTORY OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY.
to the square, the city, after adopting a proper ordinance authorizing the same, did, on October 5, 1855, deed to the county an undivided one- half interest in the square, reciting that it was " for public purposes and for the public good, as was originally designed by C. M. Weber in his conveyauce to said city; said square beiug intended by the grautor, C. M. Weber, as the location of the county court-house."
The county and city continued to occupy and use the court-liouse and square, and to pay equally for grading, boring artesian wells, and making other improvements to 1885. The county, finding it necessary to erect a new and inuch larger court-house in place of the old one, desired to erect the new building in the center of the square. Some of the city authorities not only denied the right of the county to erect a new court-house in the center of the square, but 'denied that the county had any right to the square whatever. The Board of Supervisors, on the advice of Ansel Smith, then district attor- ney of the county, decided to bring au action to quiet title to the square.
This action was commenced in 1885 aud prosecuted to decree by Ansel Smith, district attorney, and the Hon. Joseph H. Budd, of counsel ou the part of the county. The city filed an answer in the case denying generally that the county had any rights in or to the square whatever. During the trial, before the Hou. A. V. R. Paterson and Hon. J. G. Swin- nerton, Judges of the Superior Court, an agree- ment was reached between the county and city which gave the county about all that the county claimed, and was at the same tinie wholly fair to the city. Judgment was rendered April 3, 1886.
Findings were filed and decree entered in ac- cordauce with findings and agreement, the sub- stance of which is given in items 17 to 19 of the findings of the court, as follows:
"17. That by the terms and conditions of said dedication, by said Weber, as found in finding III* herein, the Legislative authorities
of said city were giveu the power (subject to a reasonable discretion in relation thereto) to say and determine whether the whole of said square is or will be at any future time necessary for a county court-house.
" 18. That said city of Stockton lias no title to said block No. 3, nor any part thereof, except so far as it may have the same under the dedi- cation in said finding III* meutioned, and such title is subordinate to the right and title of the county of San Joaquin thereto for the erection and maintenance thereon of a court-house build- ing suitable, when required, for the purpose ill finding XVI* mentioned, and whereon and fromn the time the proper authorities of said city may determine that it is not advisable to erect or maintain public buildings thereon, said city will have no right to the possession of said block No. 3, uor to any part thereof, until said county mnay abandou the same for the erection and inaintenance thereon of the court-house and the county and other buildings of the county thereon.
"19. That siuce the commencement of this suit the proper authorities of said city and of said county have stipulated in substance and effect, and agreed in open court and requested the court to find, and the court does find: That the proper authorities of said city of Stockton, to-wit: the mayor and city council of said city, have determined that the whole of said block No. 3 east of Center street in said city of Stockton is necessary for the erection thereon of a county court-house and such other public buildings of the county of San Joaquin as may be deemed necessary by the proper authorities of said county, subject to the use by said city, and reserving to said city the right to the use, of the following space withiu said county court- house building, free of charge, for the term of fifteen years from and after the completion of said building, with the privilege of the use of such space or a portion thereof for the additional term of five years, if deemed advisable by the proper authorities of said county, to-wit: four suitable rooms for the offices of the officers of said city, three of such rooms not less than
* The substance of this finding is given already in the preced. ing paragraph.
102
HISTORY OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY.
twenty by twenty feet, and one not less than twenty by thirty feet, and the use of one of the court-rooms in said new county court-house for the meetings of the city council of said city, and the use of a portion of the office of the county treasurer for the city treasurer of said city, and the use of a portion of the office of the county surveyor for the city surveyor of said city, and the use of a portion of the office of the county assessor for the city assessor of said city.
" And the court further finds that such de- termination is a reasonable one, and in accord- ance with the terms of said dedication.
" And it appearing in like manner to the court that the county of San Joaquin, plaintiff, and the city of Stockton, one of the defendants herein, have, for the purpose of compromising and settling the claim of said city to the im- provements now on the said block, No. 3, east of Center street in said city of Stockton, agreed the one with the other, that the said city relin- quish to the said county all its right, title and interest in, and possession of, said improvements, including the building now standing on said block No. 3, and that the county as full com- pensation therefor furnish to said city, free of charge, during the building of a new court- house building on said block, rooms and offices for the city council of said city, and offices for the officers of said city, in the rooms now occupied by said county on Center street in said city, so far as the same will not interfere with the holding of the courts of record in said county therein, and so far as the saine will not necessarily inter- fere with the proper discharge of the duties of the officers of said county now occupying said rooms, and further, that the said connty shall and will, so soon as a new connty court-house and new county jail is completed by said connty, relinquish and convey to said city all the in- terest of said county in the present county jail in said county and the land on which the same is situate; and it being stipulated in open court that the decree herein so far as it relates to the said improvements may be in accordance with such agreement, the court finds that the said agree-
ment is just and equitable and reasonable and that the decree herein should be in accordance therewith."
MOKELUMNE HILL ROAD.
The recent suit to settle the title of the pub- lic to a certain section of this road was success- fully prosecuted by District Attorney Ansel Smith, whose draft of instructions to the jury were so clear, pointed and accurate that they were adopted by the court with scarcely any modification. The action was taken in the Su- perior Court of San Joaquin County, and was entitled, "John Pollock, Road Overseer of Road District, No. 34 East, of the County of San Joa . quin, in the State of California, Plaintiff, vs. C. D. Watkins, Defendant."
Notice was given on September 7, 1888, to Watkins that he had built and was maintaining a fence in a public road near Bellota, and that the same was a nuisance, and directing him to remove the same. On September 26, 1888, An- sel Smith, District Attorney and attorney for plaintiff, John Pollock, and Wesley Minta, as- sistant District Attorney, commenced suit by filing a complaint charging the defendant with maintaining a nuisance, and praying for the abatement of the nuisance (removal of the fence) and for damages. November 7, 1888, the answer of the defendant was filed denying that the land was or is a public highway, and alleging that the portion alleged to have been obstructed by defendant was a great number of years ago abandoned as a public highway, and thereupon ceased to be, has not since been, and is not now a public highway, and denies that the fence was any obstruction or nuisance.
The case came on for trial before the Hon. Joseph H. Bndd and a jury. Ansel Smith, having gone out of office, had been specially em- ployed to conduct the case. The trial was finished February 27, 1889, and verdict rendered for plaintiff in the sum of $300. Judgment was entered February 28, 1889, for $300, and costs, $297.45.
On the trial the plaintiff produced as a wit
103
HISTORY OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY.
ness Mr. Andrew Showers, the owner of the land, about and before 1862, to the effect that he fenced out the land as early as 1862 for the purpose of a public highiway, and intended to dedicate it as such. Other evidence was intro- duced showing that the described land was used as a public highway as early as 1850. It was clear that after a time the travel of the road was north of this portion, and that the waters of the Mormon slough ran in the ditch caused by dig- ging out the portion formerly used as a road; bnt the contention of the plaintiff was that a road having been dedicated and established, was not and could not be abandoned by non-user, and not even by an order of supervisors; but no order of abandonment was shown. The instruc- tions of the court were very clear, and presented the law of the case fully and upheld the con- tention of the plaintiff. These instructions were:
" There is no evidence that the Mokelumne Hill road, nor the land on which the barbed- wire fence is alleged to have been built, has been vacated or abandoned as a highway by the Board of Supervisors; and the presumption is that it never was vacated. *
* * There is evidence that there was in the county of San Joaquin, as early as 1854, and ever since has been, a public highway known as and called the Mokelumne Hill Road, and there is no evidence to the contrary.
" A public highway is not to be considered abandoned merely because it is not traveled over. The sides of a public highway whence earth inay be taken for the repair of the road, and ditches within the limits of the road and along the road used for carrying off water, are just as much a part of a road as the part actually traveled over. If the road described in the com- plaint was used and traveled, and had been laid out and dedicated, as a public highway of this county as early as April 22, 1858, then it was made a public highway by the statute of this State.
" If Andrew Showers, while the owner, fenced ont the land referred to for a public highway, in-
tending it as a part of and for a public highway, and the same was used as such either by being traveled over, or as the side of the road, or for the purpose of taking earth therefrom to build or repair the road, it became a part of the pub- lic highway of this county, and no person had a right from that time to place any obstruction thereon or therein; and if you find that the de- fendant Watkins did build a barbed-wire fence on that land, and in the road, then you must find a verdict for the plaintiff. If you find that the land on which his alleged and barbed-wire fence was built was a part of the public highway of this county, then it makes no difference if par- ties on the north side of the road gave an ad- ditional forty feet; that would not cause an abandonment of what was then public highway or a part of one. If you find that the road re- ferred to as the Mokelumne Hill road was laid out prior to 1860 and used as a public highway with the consent of the owners of the land, and that it was the intention of such owners to dedi- cate the same for a public highway, then the order of the Board of Supervisors of 1860 is evi- dence that the county accepted the same as a public highway.
" If you find that on or about 1861 or 1862 Andrew Showers, while the owner of the west- half of the southwest quarter of section 5, town- ship 2 north and range 9 east, ran a line of fence on the south side of the Mokelumne Hill road, intending the fence to mark the southern boundary of said road, and intending to give and dedicate a strip of land, eighty feet or more in width nor th of sai fence, and including the land on which it is alleged this barbed-wire fence was built, as a public highway or a part of said road, and the same was accepted and used as a highway by the public generally, then the said strip of land became a part of the said Mokelumne road and a public highway of this county; and no one from that time on liad a right to obstruct the same; and if you find that the defendant did build a barbed wire fence on said road as alleged, yon must find a verdict for the plaintiff, John Pollock, and for $10 for
104
HISTORY OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY.
every day said obstruction remained after notice to remove the same was served on the defend- ant, by the overseer of the road district, obstruct- ing the part of the road on which said barbed- wire fence was constructed.
"The court instructs the jury that it appears from the evidence that one Andrew Showers was from the 21st day of May. 1861, until the 21st day of November, 1867, the owner of a tract of land in this county, known and described as the west-half of the southwest quarter of section 5, in township 2 north and range 9 east of Mount Diablo base and meridian, and near the town of Bellota, in this county; and if the jury believe on the evidence that there was a road called the Mokelumne Hill Road used by the public as a public highway running across this land, and that said Showers, on or about the year 1862, and while he was the owner and in the posses- sion of said land, and while said road ran across said land and was used by the public as a pub- lic highway, fenced out a strip of said land, ill- cluding such traveled road, to be a public highway and as a part of said Mokelumne Hill Road, and said dedication was accepted, then, after such acceptance said part of said land was fenced out and became a public highway; and neither said Showers nor his successors in in- terest, nor any one else, had a right to maintain
a fence on any portion of said land so dedicated as a public highway; and it is no defense for the person erecting or maintaining any such fence that the portion of said land which had been so dedicated as a public highway, on which said fence was erected or maintained, was no longer necessary for a public highway or had not been used as such for many years, or was in fact a water-course.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.