USA > California > Alameda County > History of Alameda County, California : including its geology, topography, soil, and productions > Part 34
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 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105 | Part 106 | Part 107 | Part 108 | Part 109 | Part 110 | Part 111 | Part 112 | Part 113 | Part 114 | Part 115 | Part 116 | Part 117 | Part 118 | Part 119 | Part 120 | Part 121 | Part 122 | Part 123 | Part 124 | Part 125 | Part 126 | Part 127 | Part 128 | Part 129 | Part 130 | Part 131 | Part 132 | Part 133 | Part 134 | Part 135 | Part 136 | Part 137 | Part 138 | Part 139 | Part 140 | Part 141 | Part 142 | Part 143 | Part 144
On April 5, 1870, the Board of Supervisors declared themselves dissatisfied with the boundary lines of the county and called for a resurvey of the same " from junction of San Joaquin and Tuolumne Counties northwardly on the west line of San Joaquin County to the slough known as the Pescadero, and also to establish that portion of the boundary from the Pescadero Slough, westwardly, in a straight line, until it strikes the dividing ridge in the direction of the house of Joel Harlan in Amador Valley." This order was modified on June 7th, however, and Horace A. Higley was appointed Deputy Surveyor, by the Surveyor-General of California, to survey the boundary lines of the county of Alameda. He was directed first to establish the line between Alameda and San Joaquin, to be subsequently approved by the Surveyor-General, . and afterwards erect monuments, execute maps for filing, etc., for which he was to receive one thousand dollars in county scrip. These duties being completed he received his warrant September 9, 1870, and on the IIth November the Board of Supervisors of San Joaquin County were notified that the boundary line established by Mr. Higley was that recognized as the true one by Alameda County.
M. W. Dijon
241
POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.
On May 2, 1870, Hiram Tubbs, J. West Martin, W. A. Bray, F. K. Shattuck, W. Van Voorhies, T. Le Roy, A. J. Snyder, George M. Blake, Harry Linden, and Allen J. Gladding, on petition, were allowed to lay down and operate for twenty-five years, a railroad from Fruit Vale to and upon Twelfth-street Bridge, Oakland; and one on Adeline Street to University Avenue. On the same date, B. F. Mann, Fred- erick Kapp, E. A. Haines, C. C. Webb, and S. Burpy et al., were granted similar privileges from the boundary line between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties on San Pablo Road to Broadway, and thence to the water front of the City of Oakland; while, on July Ist, the same company were granted the right to operate a horse rail- road, as follows: Commencing at Washington Corners; thence along the main county highway, through Centreville, Alvarado, and San Lorenzo to San Leandro; thence along the public highway to Fruit Vale Avenue in Brooklyn Township; and thence to connect with the contemplated railroad to San Pablo in Contra Costa County.
Under the provisions of the "Gopher and Squirrel Act," passed March 2, 1870, a special tax of one and a half cents on each one hundred dollars' worth of property, to be called the Bounty Fund, was ordered to be levied; while, another special levy of one cent, with the same conditions, was ordered in accordance with the Act approved March 8, 1870, to be known as "Interest Bridge Fund." On June 7th the County Recorder was authorized to re-record in the proper book the following maps: Kellers- berger's Map of the City of Oakland; Map of town of San Leandro, by H. A. Higley; and a map of Oakland showing the position of the property of Joseph Irving, deceased. At the same time the map of the ranchos of Vicente and Domingo Peralta were ordered to be framed.
On June 1I, 1870, the articles of incorporation of the Decoto Land Company of Alameda County were filed in the office of the County Clerk of San Francisco; while, among other corporations connected with Alameda whose documents were filed in this year, were the Bay Spring Water Company, in the office of the Secretary of State, April 4th; the Berkeley and Oakland Water Works Company, in the office of the County Clerk of Alameda County, April 12th; and the articles of association, amalgamation and consolidation of the Central Pacific of California with the Western Pacific Railroad, under the name of the Central Pacific Railroad, in the office of the Secretary of State, June 23d.
On July 1, 1870, the petition of E. S. Moulton et al., to build a wharf in Alameda, was received and the prayer granted; while, from the report of the Grand Jury for the September term of this year, we find that the balance in the treasury vault on the 23d of that month was twelve thousand nine hundred and fourteen dollars; and the assessed value of the real and personal property in the county was eleven millions seven hundred and eighty-six thousand three hundred and eighty-one dollars; the amount of tax levied for the year 1870 being two hundred and fifty-five thousand seven hundred and sixty-four dollars and forty-eight cents.
On October 3, 1870, the new Board of Supervisors took their seats and com- prised: F. K. Shattuck (Chairman), Oakland Township; R. S. Farrelly, Brooklyn Township; Louis Fassking, Alameda Township; W. J. Stratton, Eden Township; M. W. Dixon, Washington Township; Thomas Scott, Murray Township. Among their first duties was the appointment of a committee to obtain plans and specifica-
242
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
tions for a draw-bridge across the Alameda Creek, near Alvarado, and to order the Road Commissioners of Eden and Washington Townships to advertise for bids to build the same. On the 7th November, Mr. Burrell, to whom was granted the con- tract at eleven hundred and ninety dollars, invited examination of the work, and for this purpose the Board appointed a committee, who, on January 9, 1871, reported that the building of the bridge was not in accordance with the plans and specifications, and recommended its rejection. Upon this the contractor was granted thirty days' extension of time wherein to complete the work, and on the 2d February was allowed one thousand dollars on account, while John Caddy was appointed to inspect and report upon the work March 3d. Mr. Burrell demanded a settlement in full, but this the Board refused on the plea that the bridge had not been made in accordance with the plans adopted by them, but on the IIth the Supervisors agree to examine the structure, evidently it was found to be unsatisfactory, however, for we find, under date March 20, that the Road Commissioners of Washington Township were required to put the bridge in proper order to subserve the purposes for which it was intended, that official, on April 14th, reporting its completion by B. F. Ingalls at a cost of four hundred and ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents.
The certificate of incorporation of the San José Mission Land Company was filed, October 13th; and, on the 17th, the fifteen thousand dollars' worth of bonds issued on account of the Twelfth-street Bridge was reported as exhausted and the work unfin- ished; whereupon the Board ordered the issuance of three thousand dollars additional bonds to complete the work. A committee appointed for this purpose, December 5th, report all bills paid, and after selling the last-mentioned bonds at par, held a cash balance of four hundred and ninety dollars and forty-nine cents.
The population of Alameda County, according to the census of 1870 is given at twenty-five thousand, seven hundred and thirty-seven.
1871 .- It is said the year 1871 was remarkable in Alameda County for its hom- icides, criminal calendar, educational enterprises, and short crops.
On January 2d, Judge Nye, in his charge to the Grand Jury, dealt roughly with the California Legislature for passing an Act in opposition to the spirit of the Con- stitution of the State, permitting the Mercantile Library Lottery in San Francisco. He declared, that, without exaggeration, no single Legislative Act in the history of the State had been so baneful to society, and urged upon them to indict any parties get- ging up lotteries or raffles in the county, several of which were known to be in prog- ress. This Grand Jury reported that they had found twelve true bills out of the seventeen cases examined; while, an order was issued which transferred the famous case of Laura D. Fair, tried for the murder of A. P. Crittenden, in the month of Octo- ber of the previous year, to the Third District Court. It will be remembered that Mrs. Fair shot Crittenden on the Oakland Ferry Boat after she had left the wharf, which as we all know, juts for a great distance into the bay; consequently a doubt arose in which county the crime was committed, and upon the survey of Surveyor- General Bost it was found that the offense took place outside of the boundaries of Alameda County, therefore it became necessary to transfer the case to San Francisco.
William C. Blackwood and William Meek, two of the chief taxpayers in the
.
243
POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.
county, on January 30, 1871, entered suit in the Third District Court against County Treasurer McClure, to recover the amount of State and county taxes paid under pro- test by them, claiming, among other things, that the assessment roll was made by Edwin Hunt, who was not County Assessor, and who was not authorized by law to make such assessment. On the 6th February the District Attorney requested the Board of Supervisors to supply him with assistance in defending the suits, when Hon. John W. Dwinelle was employed. These were cases of great interest and moment to the county, and as a decision of the suits was not likely to be reached for some months, and as the legality of the assessment for the current fiscal year was involved, Mr. Dwinelle consulted Attorney-General Hamilton, who brought an action of quo war- ranto against Edwin Hunt, the acting County Assessor, charging him with usurpation of office, setting out all the facts, including Mr. Hunt's election. A demurrer was entered by Mr. Dwinelle, the case argued in the Fourth District Court, before Judge Morrison, and a decision in Mr. Hunt's favor recorded. The case was appealed. On February 13th, it was resolved by the Board of Supervisors, "That it is expedient that proceedings be instituted to procure a speedy decision by the Supreme Court as to the rightful authority by which the assessment of State and county taxes can be made in the county of Alameda." It came on before that tribunal, who affirmed Judge Morrison's decision, and it was decided that the office of County Assessor of Alameda County is a county office; that Edwin Hunt was lawfully elected and was last year, and was then, lawfully in office.
On March 6, 1871, the boundary line between Eden and Washington Townships was rectified as follows: "Commencing at the junction of North and Alameda Creeks; thence running up said North Creek to the mouth of Mathewson Ditch, so called; thence up said ditch to its intersection with the Mountain Road; thence following the line of said ditch produced to its intersection with the old township line at a point on the lands of Andrew Patterson; thence following the old township line between Eden and Washington Townships easterly to the corner of Washington, Murray, and Eden Townships."
Under the Act approved April 4, 1870, the Board of Supervisors authorized the building of the drawbridge at the foot of Webster Street, Oakland, the cost not to exceed forty-five thousand dollars, to be borne equally by the city of Oakland and town- ship of Alameda, for which purpose, at this meeting, under the report of the Commis- sioners, a tax of three dollars and eighty cents on one hundred dollars of assessed property in Alameda Township was also levied. To this levy there was, however, some objection, and to test its validity suit was brought against the Board of Super- visors by Thomas A. Smith, in whose favor Justice McKee decided, on the ground that the levy was in excess of the amount authorized by the Act, and therefore void. The Board therefore ordered another levy of three dollars and sixty cents on each one hundred dollars' worth of taxable property. On March 20th, the Oakland Gas Light Company asked for further privilege to lay pipes across the Twelfth-street Bridge, while, on the 10th April, E. L. Beard was paid seven thousand three hundred and twenty-one dollars on account of work done in Swamp Land District No. 82, from May, 1870 to May, 1871. On May 9th, the deed of J. S. Emery's rock quarry was made by that gentleman to Road Commissioner Hersey, of Oakland Township, and his succes-
244
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
sors in office, which was duly accepted and ordered recorded, the rock from the quarry being directed to be used in the macadamizing of roads in Oakland Township. On June 12th, bonds were ordered to be issued to the amount of two thousand dollars for the purpose of completing the Twelfth-street Bridge, in accordance with the Act approved March 12, 1870, said bonds to be issued "out of the Oakland and San Leandro Bridge Fund." This order was amended, however, August. 25th, by omitting these words. On the 2d October, the repairs were reported as nearly completed; but these matters would appear to have rested for a time, for we find on the 6th November the attention of the Supervisors being called to its unfinished condition. On August 25th, two thousand dollars from the Special Road and Bridge Fund was directed to be set apart for constructing a bridge over the Arroyo de Laguna, in Murray Township, for which the plans and specifications were adopted on September 18th, and the con- tract awarded to E. Dole, who reported its completion at a cost of two thousand eight hundred dollars, on the 13th November. Eight hundred dollars of this sum was contributed by private individuals, the balance being paid by warrants on the county treasury. On the 18th September, another sum of one thousand seven hundred and five dollars was paid from the Swamp Land Fund to E. L. Beard for work per- formed between the 15th July and 15th September.
At the election of September 6, 1871, for Congressional, State, County, and Township officers, Newton Booth received a majority in Alameda of nine hundred and eighteen votes, a result which gave great pleasure to his adherents, more espe- cially as it was thought that his opponent, Governor Haight, was almost certain of re-election. On the 2d October the new Board of Supervisors, composed of the following gentlemen, took their seats: F. K. Shattuck (Chairman), Oakland Town- ship; W. B. Clement, Alameda Township; Isham Case, Brooklyn Township; J. B. Marlin, Eden Township; H. Overacker, Washington Township, Joshua A. Neal, Murray Township; and at once entered upon their duties.
1872 .- The chief object of interest in this year was the question of the removal of the county seat. The first gun was fired on February 6th, when Supervisor Marlin introduced a resolution on the subject which was "simply received and filed." The Legislature was in session at this time, and there the city of Oakland, which was represented in the Senate by Hon. Ed. Tompkins, and in the Assembly by Doc- tor Pardee, felt that a better fight could be made than in the year 1870, when the matter was last contested. But the honor was not by any means to go undisputed, for the citizens, outside of Oakland, were all on the side of the residents of Eden Township, who wished the prize for San Leandro. This contest has been so fully described by different writers that we reproduce one of these: " Assemblyman Crane took up the cause for his country constituents; the Board of Supervisors, excepting the Oakland delegate, were a unit in favor of San Leandro; an able delegation, con- sisting of Hon. I. A. Amerman and John Nugent, watched over their interests at Sacramento, where they had the support of some of the ablest men on both sides of either house. On one side the cry raised was convenience, and, on the other, cost. The Oakland people maintained that they supplied the greater part of the business transacted at the county seat, which was nine miles distant from them. There were
245
POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.
the principal 'lawyers and professional men, the banks and real estate agents of the county. The Edenites maintained that San Leandro was more central; that it was accessible and convenient for all parts of the county, and was served by two rail- roads; that the county was in possession of a valuable piece of property, which was donated to it by the Estudillo family, which would revert to the original owners in case of disuse of the purpose for which it was granted; that county offices, a Court House, and jail, sufficient for the wants of the county, were already erected; and that removal would entail great expense on the people for new county buildings and grounds upon which to erect them.
The Oaklanders met some of these objections by showing that the upper portion of the City Hall could be used for years yet to come for county offices; that a fire- proof Hall of Records could be built on the city property adjoining the City Hall; or, in case of failure in this, the two city plazas, consisting of two town blocks in the lower part of the city, on Broadway, could be secured for the purpose of county buildings.
Oakland had a committee, or an association, established, called the Citizens' Union, which directed the agitation in favor of removal, and of which Harry Linden was agent. A petition was prepared and names sought for it all over the county, and active steps taken for legislative action. This aroused the Eden people, who also held meetings and organized. Their first public meeting was held in the Court House, San Leandro, on January 10, 1872. It was addressed by I. A. Amerman and John Nugent, of Eden; R. S. Farrelly and A. H. Griffith, of Brooklyn; and J. R. Palmer, of Murray. A committee was appointed to report a plan of action and resolutions, consisting of County Judge Nye and four of the gentlemen already mentioned. The following resolutions were adopted :---
WHEREAS, Certain people in the city of Oakland are endeavoring to remove the county seat of Alameda County from its present central location to the city of Oakland; and
WHEREAS, Said removal is contrary to the wishes of a large majority of the tax-payers of Alameda County; therefore, be it
Resolved, That our Senator and members of Assembly be, and they are hereby earnestly requested to delay any action upon the petition for the removal of the county seat until they receive a remonstrance of the tax-pay- ers who are opposed to such removal.
Resolved, That a copy of the above proceedings be forwarded to the Senator and members of Assembly of Alameda County, duly certified by the Chairman and Secretary.
A committee, having a representative in every school district in the county, was appointed to procure names to a remonstrance, which, in due time, was forwarded to Sacramento, largely signed.
Mr. Amerman, having been commissioned to go to Sacramento to watch legisla- tion and defeat action there, immediately after his arrival addressed a communication to Senator Tompkins, in which he put to that gentleman six leading questions touch- ing removal. Mr. A.'s communication was dated the 17th of January, and the Sen- ator's answer came promptly on the 18th, and in which he took strong ground favor- able to the Oakland agitation.
Then followed a public meeting in Brayton Hall, Oakland, on the 24th of Janu- ary, at which the following preamble and resolutions were adopted :--
246
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, It has become necessary for the accommodation of a large majority of the citizens of Alameda County, that the county seat of said county should be removed to the city of Oakland, and a petition of the voters of said county has been presented to the Legislature of the State asking the passage of a law authorizing such removal; and
WHEREAS, Objections to said removal are being made by some, on the ground that a heavy debt would be incurred by such removal, in the purchase of land and the erection of the necessary buildings for county purposes; it is therefore
Resolved, By the citizens of Oakland, that the second story of the City Hall shall be finished at the expense of the city, and partitioned into suitable rooms for the District Court, the County and Probate Courts, the Sheriff, the District Attorney, the grand jury, the petit jury, the County Surveyor, and the Judge's chambers, and that rooms shall be provided on the first floor of said hall for the Board of Supervisors and the Superintendent of Public Schools, and in the basement of said hall, if required, room sufficient for a jail. And that the city will also dedicate to the county a lot of land, parcel of the City Hall lot, situated in the southwest corner of the same, fifty feet wide, on Fourteenth Street, by one hundred feet in depth, for the purpose of erecting a Hall of Records for the use of the County Recorder, County Clerk and County Treasurer. And that the use and control of said rooms and said land shall be vested in the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County, for so long a time as said Board may use and occupy them for the purposes aforesaid.
Resolved, That the Secretary of this meeting transmit to our Senator and Representatives, and to the City Council, a copy of these resolutions.
Messrs. F. K. Shattuck, E. C. Sessions, John Benton, and Dr. Samuel Merritt were appointed to see that the matter was brought before the Legislature.
At a meeting of the City Council, held on the 29th of January, a bill was pre- sented and adopted, which was sent to the Hon. Mr. Tompkins for introduction in the Senate.
The bill provided for an election to determine the future location of the county seat-San Leandro or Oakland.
In case of the success of the latter, the City Hall of Oakland was to be fitted up for the use of the county officers; the basement of the same given up for a jail; and furthermore, a pi :ce of ground, fifty feet front by one hundred and fifty feet in depth, granted on Fourteenth Street, for the purpose of building a fire-proof Hall of Records thereon; and bonds issued for the purpose of erecting the necessary build- ings thereupon. The bill provided that the removal should be at the expense of the county; but the rooms in the City Hall were to be fitted up at the expense of the city of Oakland.
Tuesday, the 17th of February, was the day fixed for the discussion of the bill in the Senate. The bill was read by the Clerk, Mr. Ferrall, in a distinct voice, after which Senator Tompkins rose and offered a series of amendments, meeting some of the objections that had been raised to the bill; among which was one providing for the use of the plazas on Broadway for county purposes, and another making the city of Oakland liable for the election expenses in ease of a defeat at the polls. His argument was strong, plausible, and persuasive. In his masterly manner he portrayed the justice of his cause and delivered an exceeding able argu- ment. No one in that Senate chamber knew better how. It had all the facts and figures of the case to perfection, and placed them in a manner best calculated to enforce his opinions. Oakland was fortunate in possessing so able an advocate. IIe was one of the most brilliant men that ever shone in a California Legislature, and in point of ability and effectiveness was superior to every man there. Not a point was lost, not an advantage left untouched. All he wanted was a vote on the ques- tion. Nothing was fairer than that the will of the majority should be respected and their demands granted.
247
POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.
Senator Pendergast, of Napa, was expected to reply. The San Leandro lobby depended upon him. He was considered, next to Alameda's Senator, the most eloquent man in the Senate. But no reply came from him. Senator Larkin, of El Dorado, objected to the bill because it was a species of special legislation, while there was a general law to cover the case. In Senator Farley, of Amador, however, the Edenites found their strongest champion, He espoused their cause warmly, and he was a power. He was Chairman pro tem. of the Senate, and the leader of the Demo- crats in that House. He referred to the remonstrance that had been presented against the bill, which, he said, contained five hundred more names than the petition in favor of it. The Board of Supervisors of the county, he said, were all opposed to it, with one exception, and had officially so declared; he showed that the townships repre- sented by the Supervisors contained thirteen thousand one hundred and thirty-three inhabitants, while the population of the city of Oakland was but eleven thousand one hundred and four. He maintained that there were facts to show that the county seat was best situated where it then was, to serve a majority of the people of the. county. He had seen so many discreditable proceedings in connection with county seat removals that he was cautious in such matters. Senators Maclay, of Santa Clara, and Minis, of Yolo, followed on the same side, and Mr. Tompkins had to reply to them all: and this he did ably and clearly, meeting their objections in the most forcible manner. But there was an asperity in his manner and a bitterness in his tone that was unpleasant.
The bill was ordered engrossed by a majority of one, there being nineteen for, to eighteen against it.
On the 28th of February the vote on the passage of the bill was taken, when there appeared a majority of one against it, Senator Goodale, of Contra Costa, having reversed his former vote. The vote to reconsider, next day, stood nineteen for, to seventeen against.
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.