USA > California > Bench and bar in California. History, anecdotes, reminiscences > Part 13
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
Mr. Catlin is a man of indefatigable industry, of very sound judgment, and great power of investigation. He is one of the safest of counselors, un- swerving in his fidelity to his clients, and a good man every way. In speech and argument he is slow but earnest. He has had little to do with criminal business. Having a good memory he can tell a thousand interesting reminis- cences of early times in California. He is slow to anger, has no vices, pos- sesses a generous nature, and, although little given to sport or humor, and having a serious, stern, almost morose look, is gentle in spirit and as tender as a woman. He is careless about money matters, doesn't think of his own needs-of what he shall eat, or what he shall drink, or wherewithal he shall be clothed. But this is hardly a blemish in him. A man of pure life, broad knowledge, and strong brain, he still holds a good clientage, and is the junior by some years of a score of men who are leaders at the bar of the State. He owns a very fine library, in which he takes more delight than in society, politics, or external nature. A California pioneer, familiar with all the motley scenes of time's latest drama, he is just touching upon the borders of a serene old age, the venerated confidant of the public, "Whole in himself, a com- mon good."
CHAPTER XI.
John T. Doyle-Some Interesting Cases in New York and California-The Suit of Gov. Price, of New Jersey, against Squire P. Dewey and Gen. E. D. Keyes-The Convivial Wit, Sam. Ward-History of the " Pious Fund " of the Catholic Church-A Notable Argument-Peter Donahue Brought to Terms-R. J. Vandewater Taken At His Word-A Judicious Friend of Young Men-The Story of Col. C. P. Eagan, United States Army-Some Interesting Personal Points.
John T. Doyle was born in New York City. His father had come thither from Ireland in 1815, himself a remarkable man with an original mind. He, the father, opened a bookstore in New York City and made a competency. His place was a literary center, and the circle of his friends was very large. He became widely known for his unfailing humor, his urbanity, his gifts of conversation, and his critical knowledge of books. Closing his business in 1851, he removed with his family to San Francisco, and died there at a great age. But he never got old. He could tell a story with a most solemn face. He loved to go to theaters, was fond of young people, ardent and sunny in tem- perament, full of romance, a passionate lover of the beautiful and poetic, and drank "the wine of life" to the very last.
John T. Doyle graduated from Georgetown College, District of Columbia, in 1837, taking the first honors. He studied law under Dudley Selden in New York City, where he commenced practice in 1842. There he formed a partnership with Eugene Casserly, which lasted a few years. In 1850, being in bad health, he turned away from the profession, and accepted the position of superintendent of the Nicaragua Canal Company, of which the elder Vanderbilt was the chief spirit. After remaining in Nicaragua eighteen months, he returned to New York. In 1851 he came to San Francisco with his father's entire family, excepting his younger brother Emmet, who had arrived in 1849.
Mr. Doyle's long life at the bar in San Francisco was broken by his removal to his native city, whither he went in 1856 and where he remained about three years. During that period he was in partnership for a time with Mr. Rapallo, afterwards a Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, and Horace F. Clark, a son-in-law of the elder Vanderbilt. He also served for awhile as assistant district attorney. A great case which he successfully
II3
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
defended in New York will be noticed below. Returning to San Francisco in 1859, he resumed law practice there, and has ever since been one of the largest figures at that bar. Since his first arrival in 1851, he has been in partnership, at different times, with Eugene Casserly, with Janes & Barber, with Janes, Barber & Noyes, with Janes, Barber & Boyd, with Barber, Scripture & Bugbee-his firm now being Doyle, Galpin & Scripture, (Philip G. Galpin and Henry D. Scripture).
In 1876 Mr. Doyle was appointed by Governor Irwin one of the Com- missioners of Transportation (Railroad Commissioner), his associates being General George Stoneman (afterwards Governor) and Isaac W. Smith. That was generally applauded as an able and faithful and industrious commission. The report submitted by it to the legislature at the close of the year 1877, was the product of the most patient investigation. It covers, with its tables and exhibits, a large octavo volume of nearly 500 pages. Mr. Doyle made rail- road problems, questions of fares and freights, etc., a serious study for many years. On all matters affecting railroads he came to be popularly regarded as being better informed than any other man in the State. He was known as a strong anti-railroad man, and a stern anti-monopolist. He was prominent in the Committee of One Hundred during the excitement in regard to the possi- ble occupancy of Goat Island by the railroad company, in 1871.
Mr. Doyle is a fine representative of the leaders of the New York bar. The conditions of law practice in that great city are such as to develop a class of minds not seen elsewhere. He has a strong, fertile, and acute brain, is thoroughly grounded in the law, is quick, sharp, ready and full. He is a clear and logical reasoner, has an eminently practical mind, and is a genius in the line of devising remedies. His addresses to the bench are models of legal argument, and if he is stronger before juries, as many say, it is because of his rich and perennial humor. He is fluent in speech, forcible, hardly elo- quent, never repeats and never hesitates. He does not select his words or phrases in advance. In addressing a jury Mr. Doyle has a habit of singling out one man, as soon as he catches one interested, and talking to him alone for several minutes at a time. He keeps the jury in good humor. His facts are presented with admirable system, and in a very entertaining way. When he has a case naturally dry and tedious he informs it with life and refreshes it from his inexhaustible fund of merriment. A wonderful intuition is his. Both bench and bar have the greatest respect for his genius, and no intel- ligent stranger can talk with him half an hour without being impressed with the dignity of his intellect.
Perhaps the greatest law suit which ever engaged his attention was that of Rodman M. Price against Squire P. Dewey and other prominent citizens of San Francisco. This was in New York City. Price, whilom Governor of New Jersey, was, during the Mexican war, and some years after the ac-
II4
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA
quisition of California, a purser in the United States Navy. His vessel entered San Francisco harbor about the time of the conquest, and Price came ashore and walked about and around the little city with his eyes wide open. He bought real estate, and was soon a rich man, but kept his place in the navy for some years longer. Returning to the Eastern States early in 1850, he left his power of attorney with Edmund Scott. In the summer of 1851, he was in San Francisco a few months, and again departed, having substituted General E. D. Keyes, of the army, as his attorney-in-fact in place of Scott, who was about to visit South America. The next year Scott returned, and Price gave a new power of attorney to Keyes and Scott jointly. In the spring of 1853, Price held thirty-one pieces of real estate in the heart of the city, in- cluding the old postoffice. They were assessed low-in the aggregate, $73,- 400, and were heavily mortgaged ; besides Price had a large floating un- secured indebtedness. The first of July was approaching, when a law would take effect, permitting foreign creditors to attach real estate. Keyes and Scott apprehended that their principal would be swamped by foreclosures and attachments, and they determined to "clean up" before July first. They sold all the property for $135,000, to Theodore Payne and Squire P. Dewey, the purchasers to assume the mortgages. The property speedily rose in value, and Price's indignation at the sale rose in proportion. He declared that the property had been needlessly sacrificed. Some two or three years later he commenced suit for damages in New York City, against Payne, Dewey, Keyes and Scott, alleging that they had conspired to defraud him of his property, and laying his damages at $500,000. Dewey being then in New York City, Price had him arrested just as he was about to take the steamer for Europe. He was released on bail in the sum of $25,000.
The trial of this case was a great and costly struggle. Mr. Doyle, who was then, as intimated, residing in New York City, was attorney for Dewey. He had a commission directed to Robert F. Morrison (since Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), who took, on behalf of the defendants, the depositions of prominent citizens of San Francisco. These included Judge M. H. McAllis- ter, Hall McAllister, Horace P. Janes, James T. Boyd, Elisha Cook, Horace Hawes,A. J. Bowie, John Caperton, Milo Hoadley, A. G. Abell, Michael Reese, James Lick, Judge Edward Norton, Colonel E. D. Baker, Lafayette May- nard, Benjamin Davidson, George W. Wright, George Gordon and C. V. Gilles- pie. The interrogatories and cross interrogatories were all framed in New York, the former numbering 103, the "cross " 144. .
Price's principal friend in the fight was Sam. Ward. This man was a member of a New York banking house, a great wit, a most engaging talker, and of distinguished good fellowship, peculiarly so on convivial occasions. He once was United States Minister to Brazil, and afterwards passed most of his time in Washington. Judge Field speaks of him favorably in his auto-
115
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
biography. Ward, too, had lived in San Francisco, was acquainted with Price's affairs, and knew all the parties to the suit under notice. He made a strong affidavit in the case on the side of his friend Price. He swore that the property was worth when sold $300,000, and that Payne and Dewey had realized from a sale of five-sixths of it, in six week's time, a profit of $300,- 000. He implicated Michael Reese in the alleged conspiracy, and said some severe things about General Keyes. The latter made a counter affidavit, in which he hit back with vigor, as this short extract will illustrate:
" And deponent further saith that, from July 1, 1853, to January 1, 1854, his intimacy with said Samuel Ward was greater than it had ever been before with any man for the same length of time. Deponent saw him almost daily, and was so charmed with the liveliness of his wit, his knowledge of languages, his skill in gastronomy, his rotund, expansive appreciation of good wine, his easy practice of those flattering arts which enable him to spend so much money while he earns so little, that deponent was allured by him to slide away from the wonted austereness of his life and to give up much of his time to feasting and vain discourses, greatly to deponent's reproach as a sedate citizen, and, as he fears, to the hazard of his sonl."
The pleadings, testimony, etc., in this case were printed, and comprise several large volumes. To come to the result, it was a signal victory for Mr. Doyle's client. It was about the year 1880 that Governor Price visited San Francisco again, and renewed the litigation, seeking to set aside the con- veyance to Payne and Dewey, and also suing Dewey for libel. He failed again, and went back to the State which had once made him its Governor, a poor man.
Mr. Doyle's celebrated cases are too numerous to name. I come to the great effort of his life. This was over the Pious Fund.
"In the ages of faith, before the day When men were too prond to weep or pray,"
the Catholic church of Mexico owned a very large amount of real and personal property in that country, which had been contributed by different individuals and societies, for the propagation of the Catholic faith among thie inhabitants of Upper California and Lower California, for the endowment of the church in those territories, and for the maintenance of its ministers. This vast property became known as the "Pious Fund of the Californias," and the most munificent contributions thereto were made on the 8th day of June, 1735, by the Marquis de Villapuente, and his cousin, the Marchioness de las Torres de Rada. Their gifts, made by a joint deed, consisted of 450,- 000 acres of land, many farmhouses, chapels of worship, furniture, stores, merchandise, grain, large bands of sheep, hogs, horses, mules, cows and horned cattle. The lands conveyed, which were valued at the time at $400,- 000, came to be worth many millions.
I take this impressive narrative from the record in the case :
II6
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
The piety and benevolence of the Marquis Villapuente have had few parallels in history. It is recorded of him, in Alegre's "History of the Society of Jesus in New Spain," published in 1739, that he contributed to every pious enterprise, thanking the Almighty for every opportunity to do good. It was his rule, in relieving temporal wants, never to forego spiritual comfort. He was the apostle of many peoples and nations. His beneficence penetrated all the continents. He remitted to Africa large sunis to ransom Christian captives, and founded at Algiers a hospital for their succor and spiritual consolation. He expended $100,000 for the building of churches and support of missionaries in China and Japan. In Macao he founded a home of mercy for the rescue of foundlings found in the streets. He supported, by the expenditure of enormous sums, flourishing churches in the kingdoms of Travancor, Ternate, Madure and Coromandel. In the Philippines he founded a presidio of Boholan Indians as a pro- tection against the attacks of the Mohammedans. The Church of Pondecheri, in the East Indies, was built by him. He sent large sums of money to Jerusalem for the orna- ment of the holy places and the security of pious pilgrims. In Europe he defrayed the whole expenses preceding the beatification of the venerable Father Luis de la Puente; rebuilt and re-endowed the College of Santander; built and endowed the College and Church of the Cave of Manessa; laid the foundation of a College of Missionaries at the castle of Xavier, in Navarre; served Philip V with a regiment of 570 men, armed and maintained at his own expense, for nearly a year and a half, for which service the King tendered him the viceroyalty of Mexico, and which he declined. In America he gave daily alms to the poor and afflicted, bestowed numerous dowries on virtuous maidens, chapels and pious works, spent $80,000 in building the convent of St. Joseph, of the Barefooted Franciscan Friars, at Tacubaya, and over $200,000 in missions, vessels, and other necessities of California. He founded in Arizona the two missions of Busonic and Sonoydad, changing the name San Marcelo, by which the latter was called, to San Miguel, from devotion to the latter saint; contributed $10,000 to the college of Caraces; $10,000 to that of Havanas; and another $10,000 toward founding a house of religious exercises in the City of Mexico.
Living to extreme old age, he made a pilgrimage to the house of Nazareth and the city of Loretto, in a garment of coarse cloth, under a vow not to shave his beard till he had offered up his devotions in that sacred place; distributed alms on every hand, made munificent offerings to the Holy Virgin; visited Rome, returned to Spain, and there gave away all the rest of his vast property, even dowu to his cloak; he then sought hospitality in the Imperial College at Madrid, where he made his vows with tenderness and devo- tion, to the edification of the whole court. He died on the 13th day of February, 1739.
The "Pious Fund," thus swelled by the munificence of the Marquis and Marchioness named, was held in trust by the Jesuits, who had charge of the Missions of California down to 1768, when, by order of the Spanish Crown, they were expelled from Mexico and California. The Missions were then turned over by the viceroy, first, to the Franciscan order ; later, one-half to that order, the other half to the Dominican friars. In April, 1772, Lower Cal- ifornia was assigned exclusively to the Dominicans, and Upper California to the Franciscans. The Crown fully recognized that it held the " Pious Fund " as a sacred trust, and devoted the income and product, through the ecclesiastical authorities, to the religious uses designed by the donors.
When Mexico became independent, her government succeeded as trustee
.
117
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
of the "Pious Fund." In 1836 the fund was, by act of the Mexican Con- gress, turned over to the Bishop of the Californias, Pope Gregory XVI hav- ing erected the two territories into an Episcopal Diocese. In February, 1842, by another decree of Santa Anna, all the property of the trust was sold for the sum represented by its income (capitalized on the basis of six per cent per annum) and the proceeds were paid into the public treasury, the govern- ment obligating itself to pay six per cent on the capital thereof thenceforth.
The property was bought (the bulk of it) by the house of Boraio and the Messrs. Rubio Brothers for two millions of dollars, to which was added over one million dollars previously borrowed by the government from the fund- making the total amount on which the government bound itself to pay six per cent per annum interest in perpetuity, exceed three millions. The Bishop of California remonstrated earnestly against this last decree, as being in viola- tion of hisrights and the law of 1836. In1 1845 the General Congress restored to the Bishop and his successors the properties of the trust which had not been sold. When California passed under the American flag, payments from the " Pious Fund " by the Mexican government to the Catholic church here totally ceased.
By the convention of July 4, 1868, between the two Republics, the Ameri- can and Mexican Joint Commission was constituted, to sit at Washington, and pass on all claims presented by citizens of either country against the gov- ernment of the other. In the Fall of 1870, a memorial was presented to this body by Archbishop Alemany, Right Rev. Thaddeus Amat, Bishop of Mon- terey, and Right Rev. Eugene O'Connell, Bishop of Grass Valley, on behalf of the Catholic church in California, asking that an apportionment be made between Upper and Lower California, of the interest accrued on the "Pious Fund" since the treaty of Queretaro, and payment to the petitioners, in trust for the church, of the amount due the latter in this State. Mr. Doyle was the counsel for the church. He went to Washington and tried the case before the commis- sion. He found opposed to him the ablest talent. The Mexican government had engaged Caleb Cushing and sent Don Manuel Aspiros to assist him. Mr. Doyle had, as attorney for the church magistrates, laid this claim before the De- partment of State eleven years previously, and this was one of the principal claims for the settlement of which the joint commission was created. He appeared before this latter body without any original documents, those papers all being in the archives of the Mexican government, but he was thoroughly fortified with evidence and argument. The eminent counsel for Mexico moved to dismiss the claim as stating no cause of action. Mr. Doyle then supplemented his lengthy memorial with an elaborate statement and argument of forty printed pages. These and his other.briefs in the case have been published, but copies are very rare. In his first argument he states that he examined carefully every book, document, and scrap of Mexican history that he could find, hav-
118
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
ing the least bearing on the subject, including many public documents not to be found in published works. It was ably urged, on behalf of Mexico, that the Bishops of the church in California were not the proper parties to make the demand ; that the "Pious Fund " had been confiscated to the Mexican gov- ernment ; that the claim was barred by article XIV of the treaty of peace, which released Mexico from all claims of United States citizens ; and, further, that the Archbishop and Bishops claimant, being local corporations, could not claim property outside of their dioceses. In reply, Mr. Doyle argued (to reverse the order of these propositions) that all corporations are local in the same sense-viz., that they have some local habitat, and derive their cor- porate powers from some local law-but they may own property, and maintain and defend suits outside of the territory of the States which create them. There is no distinction in this respect between religious corporations and those organized for trade. If property belonging to an English Cathe- dral Church is wrongfully removed to the United States, the Bishop of such church, or the diocesan authority, entitled to the custody of its temporalities, can recover it in any United States court of competent jurisdiction. Besides, this is not a question of corporation law. The Bishops claimant, whether in- corporated or not, can rightly press this claim, because they are the consti- tuted authorities of the church. As to the claim being barred by the treaty, Mr. Doyle showed that Mexico was released by that compact only from such claims as had not then been decided against her, and which arose previously to the date of the treaty (February 2, 1848). At that date this claim was not a claim by citizens of the United States; it was by persons who were then Mexican citizens-the church of California being then part of the church of Mexico, and its political status being that of a Mexican citizen. This status was changed by the treaty-at the ratification of the treaty. Then it ceased to be Mexican and became American, and thenceforth only did its demands on Mexico become claims of United States citizens.
As to confiscation, Mr. Doyle traced the history of the fund from the time it was taken from the original trustees down to the decree of October, 1842, under which it was incorporated into the public treasury. In that decree Santa Ana declared it was the intention of the government to "fulfill most faithfully the beneficent objects designed by the founders, without the slightest diminution of the properties to the end," and " without any deduction for costs, whether of administration, or otherwise." Neither the Spanish nor Mexican government ever claimed the right, or exercised the power, of diverting the fund from its original purpose.
From this printed argument I take this specimen of unpretentious, vigor- ous style:
History furnishes frequent instances where the poverty of the public treasury, the rapacity of the monarch, or the cupidity of a favorite, has led to the spoliation of chari-
119
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
ties and other church properties. Such acts have usually been cloaked under the disguise of reform of abuses, or excused by the plea of great public necessity. The atheistical zealots of the French revolution were, I believe, the first to invent the idea that property dedicated to such uses was public or national property; but their acts in confiscating and treating it as such were condemned by the voice of all Europe, and repudiated, so far as possible, by France herself as soon as she began to recover from her delirium. Partisans, writing what they call history, have sought to excuse such acts in various ways, and philosophers have sometimes viewed them leniently, discovering in their remote consequences public benefits proceeding from individual wrong; but I am not aware of any instance where an independent tribunal, constituted to administer justice, has ever given them its sanction, or regarded them otherwise than as acts of mere arbitrary power, without legal justification.
In dealing with the proposition that the Bishops were not the proper parties to present the claim, Mr. Doyle displayed rare powers of argument and gave signal proof of the truth of his own statement, that he had given to this great cause the unwearied investigation of years. He evinced close acquaintance with ecclesiastical and profane history, declared the canon law applicable to the case, showed that the Bishops claimant were the only persons who could properly present the claim, and, in the course of his argument, took occasion to thus tersely restate his case:
Mexico, holding the Pious Fund of California upon trust for the use and benefit of the Catholic Church of California, being both sovereign and trustee, and having the entire power over the trust, not amenable to any court or tribunal, formally determines to appropriate the whole means and property to her own use, and substitute for it her own obligation to pay interest on the capital at six per cent. per annum, thenceforth. She is. both purchaser and seller, fixes the price, the credit and the rate of interest without con- sulting the cestui que trust. The latter is powerless to resist the proceeding. All she can do is to demand performance of the promise which, without her consent, has been sub- stituted for her tangible property. Her chief magistrates, recognized over and over again by Mexico, as representing her in this regard, are here demanding on her behalf the enforcement of the obligation; if they are not the proper parties to do so, it is not easy to see who are. * * * The Bishops represent fairly the numerous body of Christian people over whom their spiritual jurisdiction extends, and would for that reason be competent plaintiffs on behalf of the whole body, even before a court of equity, where technical rules are rigidly enforced. Tribunals like the present, (the joint commission) are not trammeled by such rules, but proceed upon the broad foundation of substantial justice.
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.