History of Alameda County, California : including its geology, topography, soil, and productions, Part 28

Author: Munro-Fraser, J. P
Publication date: 1883
Publisher: Oakland, Calif. : M.W. Wood
Number of Pages: 1206

USA > California > Alameda County > History of Alameda County, California : including its geology, topography, soil, and productions > Part 28

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).

" each sheep.

1.00

" each hog 1.00

This enterprise had blossomed into a joint stock company during the two years of its existence, for we find, at the first meeting of the Court of Sessions of Alameda County, that H. W. Carpentier as attorney for the Contra Costa Steam Navigation Company, made application for a renewal of the license for one year, which was granted and the following rates declared leviable :-

For one foot passenger, $ .50

" horses, mules and cattle, per head. 2.00

" empty wagons, each. 1.50

" hogs and sheep, per head. .50

" freight, her hundred-weight .25

Then came petitions for public roads and the designation of road districts, and, again, Mr. Carpentier, with a proposition in writing, concerning a matter which continued for several years thereafter to furnish an apparently exhaustless supply of material for county legislation, and which, like Banquo's ghost, would not down at any mortal's bidding. This morsel of ancient history we here reproduce in its entirety :-

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, June 6, 1853.

I hereby propose to complete the bridge across the creek known as San Antonio Slough, opposite the rcsi- dence of Messrs. Patton, on the following terms: The bridge shall be commenced forthwith and finished with expedition. I will charge and receive to my own use tolls at the following rates, to-wit: Each footman, twelve cents; horses, cattle, etc., each twenty-five cents; vehicle drawn by one or two animals, fifty cents, and other things in like proportion. Said bridge shall be free from taxation or assessment. I will surrender said hridge to the county, to be made a free bridge and to be used only as a bridge, at any time within twelve months, on their payment to me of the original cost of its construction, together with interest thereon at three per cent. per month. It shall be finished from bank to bank. This proposition to be binding on its acceptance by the Court of Sessions of Contra Costa County. [Signed] H. W. CARPENTIER.

198

HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ..

This is the first appearance of the Twelfth-street bridge, but by no means the last.

The Court after due consideration ordered that the proposition be accepted, care- , fully guarding the county, however, from any obligation to redeem the same, or in any- wise to become pecuniarily responsible in the matter. The Court then proceeded to levy a poll-tax for highway purposes of two days' work on all able-bodied men be- tween the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, for the year 1853, after which catholic and comprehensive legislation, it proceeded to bring its first day's labor to a close by adjournment "till to-morrow morning at eight o'clock." The record of this adjourned meeting is dated May 7, 1853, a month prior to the first one. The only business transacted by the Court at this time was the fixing of allowances to officers of the late election at five dollars per day, and passing claims against the county, aggre- gating six hundred and twenty-three dollars and forty cents, divided as follows :-

D. S. Lord, for blank books and stationery. $425.00

A. M. Church, services, obtaining books, stationery and trimming for desk, etc. 49.00 Homer & Stevens, lumber for county desk 26.00

Perham & Weaver, work on county desk 81.00

Justices Long and Lacey, two days' services as Associate Justices @ $6.00 per day each .. 24.00

Justices Marier, Harris, and McMurtry, one day's services so as to elect Associate Justices @ $6.00 per day each. 18.00

At the next meeting the election precincts in the different townships were estab- lished, after which the Court resolved itself into a Board of Equalization and proceeded to levy a tax upon all real and personal property in the county, of sixty cents upon each one hundred dollars, " instead of thirty cents heretofore ordered by this Board at a special term held at this place on the 11th day of May, 1853." As the Court was organized on June 6th, this levy refers to the proceedings of Contra Costa County. From this date forward the time of the Court was chiefly occupied with road matters, with occasional variations, as for instance, on August 2d, George Kerr & Co., presented a bill for thirty dollars for printing one hundred hand-bills, which the Court, after due consideration, cut down to fifteen dollars, therein setting an example of careful scrutiny and rigid economy in public affairs far more worthy of imitation than modern legislative bodies generally seem to consider it. In this connection it may be truly said that this county was unusually fortunate in the selection of its first officers. They were very careful, accurate, methodical men, leaving for the most part clear and intel- ligible record of their public work behind them, and if further evidence be required of this, it is to be found in the fact that the only two survivors of the first elected officers of Alameda County are still occupying elective positions of honor and trust among the descendants of those whose excellent judgment first called upon them for public service. The well-worn proverb, "As the twig is bent the tree's inclined," receives ample confirmation both in the legislative and executive history of this county, for, with rare exceptions, the confidence reposed in those selected for office has never been violated. It is but just and proper that the full measure of praise should be meted out to the faithful public officer. The difficulties that beset his path are no more understood by the people at large than are the duties devolving upon him by statute; he is required to interpret as well as to execute the law, and, upon his decision important private as well as public interests ofttimes depend. When attention is

199

POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.

called to these facts and well-earned praise is bestowed upon him, it is too often met with the contemptuous and contemptible reply that "anybody can do as well." This same anybody is occasionally tried and found wanting, and then what a howl goes up from the virtuous people! The individual is taken for the class, denunciation is poured forth with unstinting measure, and the honest public official hangs his head in shame for his race, feeling that in retiring from his trust he will carry within himself the only reward of a well-administered official career-a mind conscious of right. Honest officials outnumber dishonest ones a thousand-fold, popular clamor to the contrary not- withstanding, and the time has come when we should understand this, and though late in the day, yet render equal and exact justice to all-to the good as well as to the bad.

On September 9th an election was held in the county, at which the following officers were chosen for one year: Asa Walker, S. P. Hopkins, H. M. Randall, B. F. Ferris, A. Marshall, William Fleming, Calvin Rogers, and S. H. Robinson, Justices of the Peace; A. B. Atwell, D. N. Van Dyke, William H. Walker, Constables. The Court of Sessions makes no record of this election, either by proclamation or by can- vass of returns. In October following, these Justices convened and elected A. Mar- shall and S. H. Robinson from among their number as Associate Justices, while, the most noteworthy event that occurred thereafter was the presentation of a claim for seven thousand two hundred and four dollars, seventy-three cents, against Alameda by the county of Santa Clara.

By a reference to section eleven of the Organic Act, it will be seen that two Com- missioners were to be appointed from each of the counties of Santa Clara and Contra Costa to meet like Commissioners of Alameda County who should determine and fix the amount of indebtedness due to the two former by the latter. The report of this Commission is preserved and shows that on July 25, 1853, the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County appointed H. C. Melone and John Yontz as their members. Mr. Melone was County Clerk and certifies to the genuineness of his own appointment. The Court of Sessions of Contra Costa County, on June 8th of the same year appointed J. F. Williams and Thomas A. Brown their members, the latter gentleman being the County Clerk of his county at the time. These four gentlemen met in Alameda County, and the record of their proceedings, bearing date August 15, 1853, sets forth that they find the sum of seven thousand two hundred and four dollars and seventy- three cents due from Alameda to Santa Clara, and the sum of six thousand two hun- dred and forty-seven dollars and sixty-four cents due to Contra Costa from the same source. The claim of Santa Clara County was therefore presented to the Court of Sessions as above stated, at the September Term thereof, and was held under advise- ment until the December Term following, at which time the claim was rejected on the ground that the award was made "wholly without authority of law;" the Court further "do not in any way admit the same to be correct as to amount, or that anything what- ever is due from Alameda to Santa Clara County."

It is difficult to understand how the Honorable Court arrived at this conclusion, with the recently enacted statute before them. They might have disputed the claim as regards its equitableness, but the mandatory character of the law covering the case seems to dispel all doubt as to its legality.

200

HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

The matter again became the subject of State legislation and on May 1, 1854, an Act was passed fixing the indebtedness at six thousand four hundred and seventy- four dollars, to be paid in two equal sums on or before January 1, 1855 and 1856, and ordering the Court of Sessions to make the necessary tax levies to meet the obligations. Accordingly, the first levy was made August 24, 1854; the first payment on account was made March 3, 1855, of two thousand one hundred dollars, and they were con- tinued at irregular intervals until October 1, 1857, at which time the account showed that six thousand two hundred and thirty-five dollars had been paid, leaving a balance on hand of seventy-eight dollars.

In December, 1853, the county was again divided into townships, the number being reduced to five, and that of Contra Costa being absorbed in Oakland, while the boundaries of the others were materially altered.

1854 .- The year 1854 brought to Alameda County, among its first offerings, the claim of Contra Costa, which was certified to at the same time as that of Santa Clara County. The Court of Sessions made the same disposition of this claim that it did of the other; the like resort to the Legislature was had, and that body, under date May 15, 1855, enacted that B. C. Whitman of Solano County be appointed a Com- missioner to adjust the indebtedness, and that he should enter on the discharge of his duties " as soon as a suit now pending in the District Court in favor of T. C. Gilman and against the county of Contra Costa shall be finally terminated," at a time appointed by himself, at the town of Martinez, and in conjunction with the County Clerks of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.

This matter of the county's indebtedness dragged its slow length along-let us follow it. On April 26, 1862, B. C. Whitman and Charles Fish were appointed to ascertain and award the amount of indebtedness of Alameda County to Contra Costa. In their report, presented in the form of a communication addressed jointly to the Supervisoral Boards of the two counties interested, the following decision is. found: " They (the Commissioners) find that the county of Contra Costa has paid on account of obligations existing at the time of the organization of the county of Alameda the sum of thirty-six thousand seven hundred and fifty-five dollars, fifteen cents. That the said county of Alameda was justly and equitably bound for a portion thereof, amounting to fifteen thousand five hundred and eighteen dollars, seventy-eight cents. That under and by virture of an award heretofore inade on June 4, 1858, said county of Alameda has paid to the county of Contra Costa the sum of three thousand nine hundred and forty-five dollars, sixty-six cents; leaving unpaid a balance of eleven thousand five hundred and seventy-four dollars, twelve cents, equitably due from the county of Alameda to the county of Contra Costa, arising out of obligations existing against the county of Contra Costa, at the time of the organization of the said county of Alameda. Therefore we do hereby award said sum of eleven thousand five hundred and seventy-four dollars, twelve cents, as equitably due under and by virtue of the pro- visions of the Act aforesaid from the county of Alameda to the county of Contra Costa, and, by virtue of the powers conferred upon us, we declare and certify the same to your honorable bodies, as by said Act directed and charged."

In an appeal from the Fourth Judicial District Court to the Supreme Court, Justice Lorenzo Sawyer, in the case "The People ex rel. The County of Contra Costa

Brøy

Chas. Dann

201

POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.

versus The Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda" (Cal. Rep. pp. 646-652), rendered the following decision in this matter :-

"In 1852, one Gilman built a bridge for the county of Contra Costa, upon a contract for about eight thousand dollars, to bear interest at the rate of five per cent. per month till paid. The bridge was not completed till some time in 1853. On the 23d of March, 1853, the county of Alameda was created by the Legislature out of territory taken from the counties of Contra Costa and Santa Clara, and the said bridge fell within the new county of Alameda. The contract for building the bridge being with the county of Contra Costa, and the money being unpaid, Gilman sued that county for the amount due, and in 1856 recovered a judgment of upwards of twenty thousand dollars, with accruing interest and costs. In 1858, the Legislature passed an Act appointing Commissioners to adjust the amount to be paid by Ala- meda County to Contra Costa County, as her share of the debt that had accrued while a portion of Alameda County formed a part of the county of Contra Costa, but the Commissioners in their award were limited by the Act to the indebtedness which had accrued prior to the 23d of March, 1853, the date of the creation of the new county. At that date no interest on the bridge contract had accrued. The Commissioners awarded against Alameda County the sum of three thousand nine hundred and forty-four dollars and sixty-six cents, but, for reasons before stated, the award did not include any interest on the bridge contract. This award was afterwards, in 1860 and 1861, paid to the county of Contra Costa. On the 14th of March, 1860, the Legislature passed an Act empowering and requiring the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County to levy a special tax for the payment of the judgment, inter- ests and costs recovered by Gilman in 1856 on the bridge contract, which was accord- ingly done and the judgment paid by the county of Contra Costa.

"In 1862, another Act was passed, reciting in its preamble the payment by Contra Costa County, in pursuance of said Act of 1860, of the said Gilman judgment of 'thirty-one thousand dollars, some twenty-four thousand dollars of the amount being for interest * on an obligation contracted before the organization of Alameda County,' etc., and in the body of the Act appointing Commissioners 'to ascertain and award the amount of indebtedness, if any be found equitably due, from the county of Alameda to the county of Contra Costa on account of obligations existing at the time of the organization of the said county of Alameda.' The Com- missioners are required, if any award be found against the county of Alameda, to certify the same to the Boards of Supervisors of the respective counties, and there- upon the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County are required, within a specified time, to levy a tax for the purpose, and pay the amount so awarded to the county of Contra Costa. Under this Act the Commissioners awarded in favor of Contra Costa County against the county of Alameda the sum of eleven thousand five hundred and seventy-four dollars and twelve cents, the sum being for a portion of the said interest paid by the county of Contra Costa on the said bridge contract, and the judgment thereon, and for nothing else. The award having been certified to the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County, and a demand that the tax for its payment be levied in pursuance of the Act having been made, and the said Board having refused to levy the same, an alternative mandamus was issued by the District Court

202

HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

of the Fourth Judicial District against said Board in this case, which was afterwards by the judgment of the Court, made peremptory. From the judgment this appeal is , taken.

" The appellants make two points: Firstly, the county of Contra Costa has no power to act as a relator, for the county is not a party beneficially interested. Secondly, the Legislature has trespassed upon the judicial power.

"There is nothing in the first point. The judgment paid was against the county of Contra Costa, and the money awarded is to go into the treasury of the county. It makes no difference that the law provides that 'it shall be apportioned in the treasury of the county of Contra Costa,' for certain specified purposes, viz., for the construction of certain roads, and to the 'County School Fund.' The county has charge of the funds, and is the trustee appointed by the law to apply it to the public uses specified, all of which are appropriate county charges. The county is, we think, ' a party beneficially interested,' within the meaning of the Practice Act.

"It is objected that in appointing Commissioners to ascertain and award the amount to be paid by Alameda County to Contra Costa County, the Legislature conferred upon them judicial functions, and thereby usurped powers that, under the Constitu- tion, belong exclusively to the judicial department of the Government. It will be observed that the money claimed was not a legal demand by one county against another, growing out of contracts or transactions between themselves, which could be litigated between them and enforced by suit in a court of justice. The claim as between the counties arose solely out of legislative action in creating the new county of Alameda in part out of the county of Contra Costa, and wholly independent of the action of either county as between themselves. The Legislature is charged by the Constitution with the power and duty of establishing a system of county and town governments. (Article IX., Section 4.) It may divide counties and create new ones, or change the boundaries, as in its wisdom it may deem the public interest to require. And in creating new counties out of territory taken from counties already organized, it is but just that it should apportion the debts already accrued between the new and old counties in the ratio of the territory, population, taxable property and benefits conferred on the respective counties or portions of counties affected by the change. It possesses the taxing power, and the power to determine for what objects of public interest, and to what extent, the taxing power shall be exercised. As incident to these powers, it is authorized to apportion the taxes either upon the whole State, or upon particular districts, according as the object is one of general or local interest or benefit. It may say what amount shall be paid by one district, and what amount by another.

"In the case of Town of Guilford vs. Supervisors of Chenango County (3 Ker., 149), the Court of Appeals of New York say: 'The Legislature is not confined in its appropriation of the public moneys, or of the sums to be raised by taxation in favor of individuals, to cases in which a legal demand exists against the State. It can thus recognize claims founded in equity and justice, in the largest sense of these terms, or in gratitude or charity. Independently of express constitutional restrictions, it can make appropriations of money whenever the public well-being requires, or will be promoted by it; and it is the judge of what is for the public good. It can,

203

POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.

moreover, under the power to levy taxes, apportion the public burdens among all the tax-paying citizens of the State, or among those of a particular section or political division.

"This was in a case where certain parties had sued the town of Guilford for expenses incurred and paid by them in conducting, by direction of the town, certain litigation on the part of the town, but in said suit failed to recover against the town the amount so expended, because the town was not legally liable. Subsequently the Legislature authorized the town, upon the vote of the majority of the inhabi- tants, to raise the sum expended and equitably due from the town, by tax, and to pay the demand; but directing that the decision of the people should be final. The inhab- itants voted the proposition down. The Legislature then passed a law authorizing Commissioners to determine and award the amount expended by the parties in the litigation, and directing the Supervisors of the county to levy a tax upon the town of Guilford and pay the amount so awarded. The town resisted the tax on the ground that it was unconstitutional, and among other points it was insisted that the Legislature had usurped judicial functions. But the law was upheld. The Court further say in the case: 'The statute-book is full, perhaps too full, of laws awarding damages and compensation of various kinds to be paid by the public to individuals who had failed to obtain what they considered equitably due to them by the deci- sion of administrative officers acting under the provisions of former laws. The courts have no power to supervise or review the doings of the Legislature in such cases.'

"The Legislature, then, may, in its discretion, determine the objects for which, and the extent to which, the taxing power shall be exercised, and may apportion the taxes to be levied. In ascertaining the amount that ought equitably to be charged upon the different districts, as a guide to the exercise of this discretion, it may pur- sue its own methods, and employ its own instruments.

" In this case the county of Contra Costa, in making a necessary public improve- ment-a bridge-incurred an obligation, which was chargeable upon the entire county. After the obligation was incurred, but before the entire amount subsequently paid had become due, the county was divided and a large portion of the territory, population, and taxable property liable for the demand was, by the Legislature, cut off from the county of Contra Costa, and erected into the new county of Alameda- the new county including the bridge for the erection of which the obligation was incurred. Equity, at least, required that the Legislature, in making the division of the territory, should then, or at some subsequent time, ascertain, in some manner, the portion of the debt then accrued or to accrue on existing obligations, that should be equitably apportioned to each of the counties. The Legislature chose to make the apportionment through Commissioners appointed by itself. The amount chargeable upon the whole territory originally liable had, at the time of the passage of the law, been fixed by the judgment of a competent Court, and it was only necessary to make the apportionment. There are two apportionments necessary : firstly, between the two counties, and secondly, each county is to apportion its share among the taxable inhab- itants of the county. The latter apportionment as much involves the exercise of judicial functions as the former. Both require an examination of facts, and the exer- cise of judgment. Both depend upon the same principles, and stand upon the same

204

HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

footing. But neither is in the nature of a suit litigated between contending parties. The entire amount to be paid is fixed by judgment. The Legislature provides the mode and designates the officers who shall make both apportionments; and we think the power is peculiarly within the province of the legislative department of the Government. It makes no difference whether each county is directed to levy its pro- portion of the debt and pay it directly to Gilman, or whether the whole is first raised by the county of Contra Costa and paid to Gilman, and then the county of Ala- meda raises its portion and pays it to the county of Contra Costa. We think, therefore, the apportionment of the amount to be paid by the respective counties was not an encroachment upon the powers with which the judicial department is charged within the meaning of the Constitution. It is a power that has usually been exer- cised in other States, as well as heretofore in this State, by the political, and seldom, if ever, by the judicial department of the Government.

" Mr. Justice Shafter, having been of counsel in the case, did not participate in the decision."

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.

History of Alameda County, California : including its geology, topography, soil, and productions, Part 28

Author: Munro-Fraser, J. P Publication date: 1883 Publisher: Oakland, Calif. : M.W. Wood Number of Pages: 1206

Author: Munro-Fraser, J. P
Publication date: 1883
Publisher: Oakland, Calif. : M.W. Wood
Number of Pages: 1206