USA > California > Bench and bar in California. History, anecdotes, reminiscences > Part 11
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
In 1852 Mr. Searls was elected District Attorney of Nevada county. In 1855 he was elected, on the American or Knownothing ticket, District Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial District, comprising the counties of Sierra, Nevada and Plumas, and served a full term of six years. He was renominated by the Democrats, and was defeated by the Hon. T. B. McFarland, now an Asso- ciate Justice of the Supreme Court. In 1864 he closed his law business and went back to New York, where he followed the life of a farmer for six years. I11 1870 he returned to his old mountain home in California, and resumed the practice of his profession. In 1877 he was elected to the State Senate on the Democratic ticket, and served for one session, his official term being abridged by the new constitution. A political foeman to Governor Perkins, he was yet appointed by the Governor a member of the Debris Commission, and was President of the Board when the Act creating it was declared unconstitu- tional, in 1880.
When Judge Searls went on the bench there was a great deal of impor- tant litigation in the counties comprising his district, appertaining mainly to water rights and mining claims. The questions involved were new, and the conditions required the application of new rules and principles. It may almost be said that the law applicable to these conflicting rights, and to their peculiar properties, had to be devised and created by the judiciary. A class of titles and claims of rights existed, entirely unknown to the common law. To reconcile and adjust them required on the part of the bench more than ordi- nary breadth of intellect. Mere knowledge of the law, as it was written, though essential, was not enough. It was no ordinary work to administer the law, and, as it were, make it at the same time. There was another diffi- culty to overcome, which challenged a cool brain and a steady will. The bar of the counties named contained many men of strong intellect and brilliant parts, but the prior administration had been lax. Inefficiency and irregularity in practice had grown up, and it was absolutely essential to the ends of jus- tice that this should be corrected. In all respects Judge Searls was equal to the occasion. It is claimed for him on high authority, that, while on the bench, he accomplished more than any judge in our history in settling and arranging the law relating to mining claims and water rights. He was always courteous and dignified-never tyrannical or oppressive. Healways demanded the respect due his office, and gave impartial attention to all suitors.
Judge Searls was born in Albany county, New York, December 22d, 1825. His father was a farmer in easy circumstances, and of pure English extrac- tion. His mother was a Miss Niles, of a well known family in his native county, the Niles beinges of Scotch descent. Abram Searls, the father of Niles Searls, removed from New York to Prince Edward district, Canada, where
95
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
he purchased land and settled with his family. Niles Searls attended school in Canada, mainly at Wellington, in Prince Edward's county. After five years' study, his father sent him, at his own request, back to his own native county in New York, where he attended the Rennsselaerville Academy for three years. He then entered the law office of O. H. Chittenden of Rennsselaer- ville, where he remained one year preparing himself for the profession. Just at that time John W. Fowler, a noted lawyer and orator, established at Cherry Valley, New York, the State and National Law School, an institution which for many years cut a conspicuous figure in legal annals. Some of the best minds of the California bar were trained at this school. Among Mr. Searls' fellows were Hon. Chancellor Hartson, and ex-Lieutenant Governor Machin. Judge Silas W. Sanderson and the late Judge Brockway afterwards attended the same school. Mr. Searls graduated from this institution after two years' study. His old schoolmates speak of him as having been an inde- fatigable student and one of the brightest minds of their class. He excelled in mathematics and scientific branches of study, and was an omnivorous reader. He was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, May 2d, 1848, and went West, traveling through Kentucky, Illi- nois and Missouri, practicing a short time in the latter State. He is a Cali- fornia pioneer, as shown by the opening sentence of this chapter.
In the spring of 1885, Judge Searls was appointed by the Supreme Court one of the three Supreme Court Commissioners, under an act of the legislature then recently approved. This Commisison was an auxiliary court in intent and effect, and was created on account of the accumulation of business in our highest tribunal, threatening to block its action. The Judge had labored most efficiently for two years on this Commission, when, on April 19, 1887, he accepted from Governor Bartlett the appointment of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, made vacant by the death of Hon. Robert F. Morrison. The Governor in this instance showed the good judg- ment which always marked his public acts, the appointee having the general confidence of the people and the press, and being very acceptable to all the other supreme judges. His ripe experience at the bar and long identification with the judiciary of the State, added to other qualities and capabilities, peculiarly endow him for the highest seat of justice. In mind and body he gives promise of many years of efficient service in his distin- guished but laborious office. Finis coronat opus.
The Chief Justice is a man of strong character, he has a handsome presence, and engaging manners, an unbending will, and great pertinacity in investiga- tion; a remarkable faculty of grasping a whole case; and sees at a glance the relative bearing of each particular part. He is eloquent on occasion, ready at repartee and has won many triumphs before juries, gaining their confidence by the evident frankness and fairness of his statements. As"a citizen he is
96
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
held in universal esteem, being liberal to a fault, pure in his private life, and always ready to lead any enterprise pro bono publico. He is a man of bright wit and broad knowledge. Like nearly every good lawyer, he has a humorous vein and a large fund of anecdotes, and likes a practical joke. He once fined Francis J. Dunn $50 for contempt of court-the contempt being tardiness. Dunn was an able, though eccentric and dissipated man, of whom many good things are said. "I did not know I was late, your honor," said Dunn. "I have no watch, and I will never be able to get one if I have to pay the fines your honor imposes upon me." (He had been fined before). Then, after a little reflection, Dunn said, "Will your honor lend me $50 to pay this last fine?" "Mr. Clerk," said Judge Searls, "remit that fine. The State can afford to lose it better than I can." And the fine was remitted.
He was in the East just at the close of the war, and visited "Dixie" with a party of friends, including the late George A. Lancaster and the late Asa D. Nudd. At one town which they reached on Sunday they visited a colored Sabbath School. Lancaster introduced the Judge as a clergyman, and he was invited to take charge of the school for that occasion. He accepted the situation, and, it is said, acquitted himself with distinguished credit.
Judge Searls married, in his native county in 1853, Miss Mary C. Niles, sister of his last law partner, ex-Supreme Judge Niles. He has two children, sons, one of them a lawyer, lately associated with him professionally, and the other a mechanical engineer.
CHAPTER X.
A. P. Catlin, of Sacramento-An Historical Chapter-The Squatter Riots of 1850- Broderick's Struggle for the United States Senate-The Peck-Palmer Bribery Trial- Memorable Meeting Between E. D. Baker and C. H. S. Williams-Locating the State Capital-Attempts To Extend the San Francisco City Front-The First Vigilance Committee of the Bay City-Trial of "The Hounds "-Impeachment of State Treasurer Bates-Long Litigation over the Town of Folsom-Allusions to Prominent Men of Early Times.
All of the eminent men thus far observed belonged originally to the bar of our metropolis, or early became identified therewith, excepting the present Chief Justice. In looking out again, from the central point of view, over the array of leadership in the interior, there rises to the mind, at the capital city, a notable figure that will repay the most intelligent study. The subject of unqualified respect throughout the State his fame is yet peculiarly associated with Sacramento, to which he has held even when she sank under floods or disappeared in tempests of fire. Author, too, of the act locating the seat of government permanently, after its long unrest, the fancy, by a little indul- gence, sees him pictured to coming times as standing under the dome of the Capitol, and upholding its historic arches on Atlantean shoulders.
A. P. Catlin was born at Tivoli, Dutchess County, New York, in January, 1823. Thomas Catlin, first of the name known in America, came from the county of Kent, England, in 1643, and settled in Hartford, Connecticut. His posterity for five generations, including Pierce Catlin, father of A. P., were born in Connecticut. David, A. P. Catlin's grandfather, was a captain in the Connecticut militia, and was in the action in which General Wooster was killed-the attack by the British General, Tryon, on the town of Danbury. He died at the age of ninety-three. His son, Pierce Catlin, was a school teacher, then a wagonmaker, afterwards a farmer. He died aged eighty-four. A. P. Catlin's ancestors on his mother's side were Germans. The first of the line came to America and settled in Dutchess County, New York, April, A. D. 1700.
A. P. Catlin graduated at Kingston Academy, Ulster County, New York in 1840. He studied law in Kingston, three and a half years, in the office of Forsyth & Linderman, both of whom were distinguished lawyers of eastern New York, and was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of New York
98
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
at Albany (Nelson, Cowen and Bronson, Justices), on the 12th of January, 1844; and to the old Court of Chancery as a solicitor by Walworth, Chancellor, on the 16th of the same month. He practiced about four years in Ulster County, where he frequently met as antagonists, in forensic battle, John Currey, afterwards Chief Justice of our Supreme Court; William Fullerton, the Judge Fullerton afterwards distinguished as counsel in the Beecher trial; T. R. Westbrook, later one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of New York ; and other young attorneys who afterwards made their mark in the Empire State. In the spring of 1848 he removed to the City of New York, and formed a partnership with George Catlin. Before leaving Ulster County he had suc- cessfully conducted an important litigation, in which he had for his client the Spanish Consul, resident in the City of New York, who had been sued in the State courts of Ulster County upon a contract liability. Mr. Catlin pleaded the consular privilege of answering only in a federal court, a privilege which was vigorously disputed, and he succeeded in ousting the State court of juris- diction.
On the 8th of January, 1849, he sailed in the brig David Henshaw for San Francisco, arriving in that port on the 8th of the following July. Here, in the brief sojourn of a month, he witnessed the organization of the first Vigilance Committee, the formation of the revolutionary court that tried the " Hounds," their trial, and concurrent scenes. That court was constituted of Dr. William M. Gwin, James T. Ward, and Thaddeus M. Leavenworth. The first two were elected by the acclamation of a crowd of citizens on Ports- mouth Square, to sit with Leavenworth, who was the Alcalde and the only lawful authority. The Alcalde at first refused to recognize his associates in any capacity other than as mere amici curia. Dr. Gwin declined to act unless he and his associate, Ward, were acknowledged as of equal authority with the Alcalde. The latter functionary was compelled, by the open threats of the excited citizens, who suspected him of partiality to the " Hounds," to yield the point. Some ten or twelve of the defendants were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for various terms, the highest being fourteen years. But there was no prison. The excitement of which the court was born had passed away before the trials were concluded, and this tribunal was powerless to enforce the execution of its decrees. The prisoners were, however, deliv- ered to the commander of the United States sloop of war Warren, and were soon after discharged, as it was understood, by order of the Secretary of the Navy. T. M. Leavenworth, after whom Leavenworth street was named, had formerly been an Episcopal clergyman at Staten Island, New York. He came to California as Chaplain of Stevenson's Regiment, and had been appointed by competent authority, Alcalde of San Francisco. Catlin was personally acquainted with him, through letters of introduction from some of his old parishioners, and sympathized with him in the severe ordeal to which
99
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
he was subjected by the Vigilance Committee ; and endeavored to support his authority. The Alcalde desired to appoint Mr. Catlin counsel to defend the "Hounds," and offered to pay for the service by grants of city lots, which he had unquestioned power to make. Catlin could not accept the employment, for the reason that at this time he was under a double contract with the mas- ter of the ship David Henshaw, and five of her sailors-first, that the sailors would work for the captain thirty days in putting his cargo ashore, and next, to take the sailors with him (Catlin) to the mines, and share with them in his proposed mining adventure, for which he had brought from New York a costly outfit of machinery. Hall McAllister conducted the prosecution and Judge Barry the defense of the prisoners.
Mr. Catlin reached the mines in the vicinity of Mormon Island, Sacra- mento County, in August, 1849. He passed the following winter there, en- gaged in mining and practicing law before Duncan, the Alcalde of that dis- trict. Upon his arrival there he found that office held by a son of Esek Cowen, who was formerly one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of New York, and who wrote a useful treatise upon Justices' Courts. Upon the resignation of young Cowen, Duncan was appointed by Judge Thomas, Judge of First In- stance, and his authority was recognized as absolute in all cases by a large population, and over an extended territory without limit of jurisdiction as to value or character of property involved, until the legislature in April, 1850, provided for justices of the peace. Returning to Sacramento in May, 1850, Mr. Catlin there met John Currey. They immediately formed a co-partnership, and opened a law office. Among the leaders of the Sacramento bar at this time were Murray Morrison, E. J. C. Kewen, Colonel Zabriskie, Jos. W. Winans, J. Neely Johnson, John B. Weller, M. S. Latham, John H. McKune and Philip L. Edwards. This partnership continued for a short time. The climate prostrated Mr. Currey, who soon retired to San Francisco.
Mr. Catlin witnessed the squatter riots, and the conflict on the corner of Fourth and J streets, between the authorities of Sacramento City and the rioters, on the fourteenth of August, 1850. On that day Woodland, the City Assessor, was killed, and Biglow, the Mayor, was mortally wounded. Others were killed in the same fight, among them Maloney, the leader of the squatters. Dr. Charles Robinson, who afterwards became Governor of Kansas, was severely wounded. On the following day, in a continuation of the same fight, a few miles out of the city, Mckinney, the Sheriff of the county, and several others were killed. (The widow of Mckinney afterwards married Mr. Wright, a hardware merchant of Marysville. Mr. John A. Paxton, the banker, married her sister). The excitement was great, and the city authori- ties, fearing an assault from the friends of the rioters, who were supposed to be gathering in the country and mining sections for that purpose, made their situation known to the authorities at San Francisco. John W. Geary, then
100
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
Mayor of the last named city, (afterwards Governor of Pennsylvania, and Major General in the Union army) came to their assistance with two San Francisco military companies, one of them commanded by the late Captain W. D. M. Howard. It soon proved that the assistance was not needed, and that rumors operating upon an excited and terrified populace had greatly ex- aggerated the supposed dangers.
Late in the Fall of 1850 Mr. Catlin closed his law office in Sacramento, and returned to Mormon Island, being employed to settle the affairs of the Connecticut Mining and Trading Company, which was the successor in interest of the famous store and business of Samuel Brannan, and to attend to the mining interests which he had acquired in that vicinity in the summer of 1849, and winter of '49-'50. Just then Wm. L. Goggin, the agent of the Post- office Department for this coast, visited Mormon Island for the purpose of establishing a Postoffice there. He requested Mr. Catlin to furnish a name for the office. Mr. Catlin had already formed the "Natoma" Mining Com- pany, adopting that name from the Indian dialect, it signifying "clear water," and a tradition that such had been, among the Indians, the name by which that locality had formerly been known. Goggin adopted the name, and that section of Sacramento county was officially named "Natoma township."
Mr. Catlin was always a Whig, as long as there was a remnant of the old party. He was placed on the Whig ticket as a nominee for the Assembly in 1851, and was with the whole ticket defeated at the September election, when Pierson B. Reading was defeated by John Bigler for Governor. In the following year he was nominated for State Senator, and was elected at the presidential election, when General Scott was the Whig candidate for Presi- dent. He served in that capacity for two years, the sessions of the legisla- ture being held at Vallejo, Benicia and Sacramento. During those two years he rendered important service in many matters of legislation. He introduced a homestead bill, the same as that which afterwards became law, but which was then, after a hot contest, defeated by the casting vote of the Lieutenant Governor. His own constituents of Sacramento were faithfully served in much needed local legislation, and in the important matter of the State Capital. He was the author of the law, making Sacramento the per- manent seat of government of the State.
The final anchorage of this ark of the political covenant, which had floated from San Jose, its original seat, to Vallejo, thence to Sacramento, back to San Jose, again to Vallejo, thence to Benicia, where it was found by the members elect on the first of January, 1854, was the result of the deter- mination and sagacity of the Sacramento Senator. During the session of 1853, the early part of which was spent at Vallejo, and the remainder at Benicia, he made no open, decided movement in behalf of Sacramento. The time was unpropitious for many reasons, among which was the fact that
IOI
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
Sacramento during the most of that winter, was submerged by a flood. The Benicians procured the passage of a bill by a two-thirds vote, making Benicia the seat of government. They entertained the mistaken notion, that it could not be removed by less than the same vote. This idea arose from the fact that the constitution had fixed the seat of government at San Jose, and provided that it should so remain until removed from that place by a two-thirds vote of the legislature. In the first removal to Vallejo this vote liad been obtained; but it was always contended, by the San Joseans, until the question, years afterward, was decided against them by the Supreme Court, that this constitutional requisition of a two-thirds vote to remove from San Jose, had not been satisfied, because the passage of the removal act had been procured by means of a contract on the part of General Vallejo to provide the State with a suitable capitol building, which contract had not been performed. By some curious process of reasoning, the Benicians appropriated this idea to their own use and benefit, and relied upon it with seeming composure. At the opening of the session in January, 1854, a strong Sacramento lobby, furnished liberally with the means of paying expenses by an appropriation by the City Council, went to Benicia, confident of their ability to procure the passage of a resolution to hold the session at Sacramento. They did not think it possible to procure the passage of an act fixing the capital at Sacramento while the legislature was in session at Benicia, but were of the belief that it was necessary first to get the legislature to hold the session at Sacramento, and that during such session an act making Sacra- mento the permanent seat of government could be passed. Senator Catlin, upon whom they mainly relied, did not concur in this opinion, and advised against the temporary expedient proposed. He urged his constituents to labor for the passage of a bill fixing the seat of government at Sacramento after the close of the pending session. In this he was overruled. The Sacramentans were twice beaten during the month of January in vigorous efforts-first by a concurrent resolution, and next by a joint resolution to adjourn and meet at Sacramento. They retired from the field, and went home thoroughly disheartened, and with little hope of ever seeing their city made the capital of the State. Catlin requested them not to return; informed them that he intended in due time to make another effort, in which their aid was not needed, and which their presence would thwart, by causing extra activity and exertion on the part of the Benicia lobby, which had been too powerful for them in the contests which had just ended.
Early in February Mr. Catlin introduced the bill for the act, which is now the law, and which is found in the statute of 1854, page 21, of which the first section reads: "From and after one day after passage of this act the permanent seat of government of this State shall be, and the same is hereby
102
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
located at, the City of Sacramento, in the County of Sacramento." The second section repealed all other acts establishing the seat of government. The peculiar provision providing for the time when the act should take effect, unlike any ever seen in a statute, was the Senator's invention, to avoid a difficulty which had before been experienced from parliamentary motions extending the time for the final vote beyond the day named for removal. Upon the introduction of the bill, Charles H. Bryan, Senator from Yuba, arose and moved that the bill be rejected-a motion known in parliamentary law, though rarely used. He said "it was an insult to the Senate for the Senator from Sacramento to bring that measure again before the legislature after it had been twice defeated."' In reply our friend reminded him that it was the first time that a bill for an act had been offered, and the first time that the full merits of the question of permanently locating the seat of government had been presented. The measure was assailed with more violence than argument. It is sufficient to say that, after encountering some narrow escapes in its progress to a third reading, the bill became a law on the 25th of February. It received the signature of Governor Bigler the moment it was delivered to him. The following day was the last the legislature could legally sit at Benicia. It merely met and adjourned, to meet at the new capital on the Ist of March, 1854. The people of Sacramento did not receive the intelligence until after the bill had passed, and were much astonished at so suddenly receiving the boon which they supposed was irrevocably lost and for which they had made a four years' struggle.
The constitutionality of the act was tested, and was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Charles H. Bryan, the Senator who had so savagely opposed the act, was then on the Supreme bench, and held that the act was constitutional.
At this session, and while the legislature was yet at Benicia, occurred one of the most remarkable trials on record, though very little record of it remains. A prolonged and determined effort was made to elect David C. Broderick, Northern Democrat, United States Senator. It was claimed by the Whigs, of whom there were seven in the Senate, and by the supporters of Dr. Gwin, Southern Democrat, that as the term for which Broderick was a candidate did not commence until after the next session of the legislature, it would be an unconstitutional act to elect at that time, and so take the election from the body to which it rightfully belonged. This argument had no weight with the supporters of Broderick, who had a large majority of friends in the Assembly, but, as it turned out, only one-half of the Senate. At that time the legislature could be called immediately into joint convention by a concurrent resolution. The struggle, therefore, was to put such a reso- lution through the Senate. Broderick's election would, at any time during the session, have resulted in twenty-four hours after the adoption of such a
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.