History of Alameda County, California : including its geology, topography, soil, and productions, Part 35

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 35

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).

There was rejoicing throughout the county precincts, and the San Leandroans received their lobby back from Sacramento with bon-fires, music, and the ringing of bells, followed by a public ball. But the contest was not yet over. On the 20th of March Assemblyman Pardee gave notice that he would introduce a new bill in his House in reference to the subject, but it was not necessary that he should, for the revised Codes provided the means for ending all such disputes, and of these the people of Oakland subsequently availed themselves.

At a meeting of the Board of Supervisors, on September 24th, a petition was presented to that body praying the Board to order an election for the purpose of allowing the citizens of the county to vote on the question of change of location of the county seat. W. W. Foote and William Van Voorhies appeared on behalf of the petitioners and R. B. Moyes and A. H. Griffith opposing the same. The petition was accompanied by the affidavit of Harry Linden as to the signatures upon the petition being those of qualified electors of the county, and also by the certificate · of the County Clerk as to the number of votes cast at the last Gubernatorial elec- tion. Messrs. Moyes and Griffith opposed the petition upon the ground that the county seat had already been once removed, thereby making it necessary that two- thirds of the voters upon the Great Register should sign a petition for removal of the

248

HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

county seat, and Joseph DuMont was sworn and testified that the county seat was formerly located in Alvarado, and was removed from there some time in 1854. J. V. B. Goodrich and C. B. Reed were each sworn and testified as to the number of uncan- celled names upon the Great Register, both setting the number down at five thou- sand.

The Board appeard to be dissatisfied as to all the names upon the petition being those of qualified electors, on motion, the petitioners were allowed to withdraw the petition, for the purpose of presenting the same at the next meeting, with the neces- sary proofs as to all the signatures being those of qualified electors. Ata subsequent meet- ing of the Board of Supervisors, held on the 22d of October, Col. Harry Linden again presented the county seat removal petition, signed by over one-third of the voters at the last general election, one thousand seven hundred and seven names. W. W. Foote introduced Colonel Linden, who was sworn and testified that he obtained over fourteen hundred of the signatures on the petition. Richard Moyes asked Colonel Linden to point out the names he had obtained, which was done. John Coffee was sworn and testified that he had compared seventeen hundred and seven names on the petition with the Great Register, with the assistance of Mr. Collins and Mr. Knox. He could point out all the names as he had marked them. Mr. Collins was sworn and testified that he had assisted in comparing about one hundred names on the peti- tion, and found them on the Great Register. J. V. B. Goodrich, County Clerk, was sworn and testified that the Great Register presented contained all the names of the voters of the county. He knew that at the last general election four thousand and

sixty votes were cast. On examination of Mr. Moyes, he said there were five thou- sand seven hundred and fifty-four names on the Great Register. Mr. Foote said the petition was presented under section three thousand nine hundred and seventy-six of the Political Code, under which the petitioners demanded that the Supervisors should act. Mr. Knox was here sworn and testified that he had compared down to fifteen hundred and sixty-two of the names on the petition.

The question whether the county seat had been once removed by a popular vote was brought up. Judge Williams was sworn on this point. In 1855 or 1856, the election was held for the re-location of the county seat from Alvarado to San Leandro. There was no Board of Supervisors at that time, and the Court of Sessions called the election. The election resulted in the removal. The county became a county in 1853. The county seat remained at Alvarado until 1855. A popular vote was taken in that year, and it was in favor of San Leandro. Subsequently it was removed back to Alvarado. In accordance with an Act of the Legislature, after that, the county seat was again removed to San Leandro.

Supervisor Case moved that the petition be received and the election ordered. Mr. Moyes objected on the ground of unauthenticity of the names. Mr. Griffith argued against the motion. A writ of mandamus compelled the removal of the records from San Leandro to Alvarado. A similar case came up in Sutter County at that time, and the Supreme Court decided that the Courts of Record must be kept where they were prescribed by law. The District and County Court must be held at the county seat. The Legislature deemed it their duty to fix the place where the courts should be held. An election, called by this Board, would amount to nothing.

John W. English

249

POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.

An Act of the Legislature must be had. He claimed that the petition did not come up to the requirements. The county seat had been once removed; to remove it again it must be done in the manner prescribed by the Act. One-third of the votes of the Great Register was required. There are five thousand seven hundred and fifty-four names on the Great Register, and the petition contains but fourteen hundred and fifty-three.

At the meeting held on October 7th, W. W. Foote appeared before the Board and stated that the parties who had been at work comparing the names on the peti- tion for the county seat removal had as yet only compared about eight or nine hun- dred names. He stated that in two weeks from then the petition would be presented; and, if the Board refused to grant the petition, proceedings would be instituted to com- pel the Board to do so. Mr. Moyes arose to speak on the question. Mr. Shattuck said it was unnecessary to say any more on the subject. He was satisfied that a majority of the Board would vote against the petition. John R. Glascock read a decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Upham vs. The Supervisors of Sutter County, in support of the argument that the Supervisors have the power to order the election. Supervisor Case called upon the county's legal advisor for his opinion on the point as to whether the Board is required to grant an election upon the petition of one-third of the voters of the last general election. Mr. Moore said he did not think the present case caine under three thousand nine hundred and eighty-five, but does properly come under section three thousand nine hundred and seventy-six. Mr. Moyes requested that Judge Nye's opinion be asked. Mr. Moore said it was proper for him to state that Judge Nye differed from him. Judge Nye was sent for and returned word that he thought it better for him not to give his opinion, as the matter might come before him judicially. A vote was taken, and the motion lost by the following vote: Neal, Overacker, Clement, Marlin, No; Chase, Shattuck, Yes. The petition was ordered on file.

The next step was to apply to the Supreme Court for a mandamus, which was done on the 12th of November, by Mr. Foote. The Court granted an alternative writ, returning on the following 19th. It commanded the Board of Supervisors to order an election or show cause for declining to do so. A demurrer was filed, and on the 19th of November the case was argued before Judge McKee, in the Third District Court; General Irvine of San Francisco and A. H. Griffith of San Lorenzo represent- ing the Board, and William Van Voorhies of Oakland and W. W. Foote of San Fran- cisco appearing for Linden. The Court sustained the demurrer, on the ground that Harry Linden was not the proper party to bring the action-he, in fact, having no more interest in the question than any other of the petitioners. The Court held that the suit should have been brought in the name of the people.

No further action was had in the matter during 1872; but, as will be seen here- after, a new complication of the matter was in process by the annexation of the town of Brooklyn to the city of Oakland.

On February 12, 1872, the District Attorney was ordered to prepare and forward to the Legislature a bill authorizing the county to issue fifteen thousand dollars of ten-year bonds to be applied to the building of a bridge across Alameda Creek near Niles. On the 19th March, specifications and plans for the structure, to consist of

250

HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

three spans of one hundred and thirty-three and one-third feet each, resting on stone or iron piers, all timber except the floor, to be preserved by the " Robins " process, were called for, which, May 5th, brought out a series of bids ranging from ten thou- sand two hundred and fifty to fourteen thousand nine hundred dollars. On the 11th of May the contract was awarded for a "Smith Truss" to the Pacific Bridge Com- pany, at twelve thousand four hundred and ninety-six dollars, and the work at once proceeded. To meet this amount county bonds for fourteen thousand dollars were ordered to be issued; and on September 30, 1872, the bridge was reported completed and satisfactory, and the contractors paid.

Owing to the great destruction of roads and bridges, consequent upon the floods of the winter of 1871-72, the Road Commissioner of Washington Township issued certificates for labor and material expended in repairing, one thousand and six dollars in excess of the amount apportioned to that township, but the Board of Supervisors doubting its authority to allow such an outlay, on March 5th resolved to prepare an empowering bill for presentation to the Legislature for the purpose of absolving him from any responsibility in the matter.

In the month of February of this year the Central Pacific Railroad Company brought suit against the city and county of San Francisco, and the county of Alameda, and the city of Oakland, for the purpose of determining in which county their wharf was situated, and to what corporation they were justly compelled to pay taxes. This action brought about a considerable amount of discussion and the services of such eminent engineers as Surveyor-General Bost; S. J. Clarke (a member of the first Cali- fornia Legislature); Captain E. F. Rogers, of the Coast Survey; G. F. Allardt, chief engineer of the Tide Land Survey; Luis Castro, County Surveyor of Alameda; and Colonel Coffee, were called into requisition, it being finally arranged that the end of the wharf was in San Francisco County, which was competent to collect taxes from the company.

Under provisions of the Act approved February 1 , 1872, entitled “ An Act sup- plemental to and amendatory of an Act entitled an Act to authorize the construction of a swing or draw-bridge across the San Antonio Creek in the county of Alameda, approved April fourth, eighteen hundred and seventy," authorizing the issue of bonds of the county to the amount of thirteen thousand three hundred and forty-four dollars and sixty-six cents, payable as follows :-

On December 12, 1872, one bond for.

$1500.00

1873

1600.00

1874

1800.00

1875

2000.00

1876

2200.00

1877

2400.00

1878

1944.66*

Was directed by the Board, the payment to be made in gold coin of the United States, at ten per cent. per annum. On the same date, March 1I, 1872, in response to a petition of citizens an election was ordered to be held at " Kelsey's Bowling Saloon," on Telegraph Avenue, Oakland, to decide as to the annexing of the following de-

*Opposite the last bond on the margin of the record is written in pencil, "Last bond is $1844.66, (signed) E. C. Palmer."

251

POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.

scribed territory to the city of Oakland: "Bounded on the north by the line of division between plots ten and eleven on Julius Kellersberger's Map of the Rancho of Vicente and Domingo Peralta, filed in the office of the County Recorder, January 21, 1857, said line being produced in a straight line with itself westerly till it intersects the westerly boundary of the county of Alameda in the bay of San Francisco, and pro- duced in like manner easterly beyond the easterly line of Webster Avenue until it intersects the small creek known as Cemetery Creek, which rises in the grounds of the Mountain View Cemetery Association and flows southwesterly to its junction with another creek rising east of said Webster Avenue on the east by said Cemetery Creek, and the other creek aforesaid below their junction until they empty into Lake Mer- ritt or Peralta, and thence southerly along the west shore line of the northwestern arm of said lake till the same intersects the northerly line of the city of Oakland; on the south by said north line of said city, and on the west by the westerly line of said county of Alameda in the bay of San Francisco, to its point of intersection with the north line already described of the territory sought to be annexed." To effect this plan an election was held with the following result: In favor of annexation, seventy- nine votes, and against it, forty-two.

Under provisions of an Act approved March 7, 1872, the town of Alameda was incorporated, while San Leandro had similar honors conferred upon it, March 21, 1872.

On July 28th, the Republican party held a Convention at San Leandro, with the object of electing delegates to the Congressional Convention, at Sacramento, when, after a keen contest, Hon. Nathan Porter, of Alameda, was put forward as the choice of the Republicans of the county. Although Mr. Porter appeared to be the favorite at Sacramento, there was present an unseen influence that gave the nomination. to Horace F. Page, of Placerville, who was put forward by the friends of the Central Pacific Railroad, and thus that company commenced to work what cannot but other- wise be a questionable influence upon the politics of California.

At the meeting of the Board of Supervisors held October 7, 1872, a petition was received from the citizens of the town of Brooklyn, praying to be annexed to the city of Oakland under provisions of the Act passed February 1, 1872, and requesting that an election be held to determine the question. The prayer was duly granted and an election called for October 21, 1872, when the following was the result: one hundred and eighty-six votes were in favor of annexation; seventy-three against it; while there was one rejected ballot. This scheme was mooted with the ultimate view of securing the county seat, for obtaining which there appeared to be a tacit understanding; there was also a feeling that a close union of the people on this side of the bay would be more likely to advance the improvement of the harbor facilities of San Antonio Creek in the eyes of the United States Congress, thus promoting the mercantile advantages and resources of the towns situated on the estuary. The opponents of the scheme, the minority, were those who saw a neglect of the interests of Brooklyn under a con- solidated city government and squirmed at the ogre of increased taxation conjured up by themselves. The wisdom of the more far-seeing has since fully proved the sagacity of their views.

Then came Alameda with a like petition. Its prayer was granted, October 22,

252

HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

1872, and, on the 9th November, the election to decide the question was held, when it was ascertained that there were only forty-seven votes in favor of annexation, and one hundred and forty-one against it; thus the township-town was permitted to retain its pristine glories.

On October 22, 1872, the Oakland and Alameda Railroad Company, assignee of H. F. Shepardson, et al., was granted permission to lay their track upon the west side of the cross-road between the Webster-street Bridge and Euclid Street, and on the west side of Euclid Street, Alameda; while, on the same date, two additional bonds of five hundred dollars each were ordered to be issued to meet the remaining debt on the Niles Bridge.

Let us now glance at the financial state of the county as made by the Treasurer up to October 7, 1872 :-

FUNDED DEBT.

Oakland Bar Bonds ....

$ 34,000 00

Oakland Bridge Bonds.

20,000 00

Niles Bridge Bonds.

15,000 00

Total

$ 69,000 00

Registered Warrants.

(Interest on entire debt 10 per cent. All registered warrants will be

paid by January 1, 1873).

Value of property owned by county: Court House, buildings, and land. . . $ 40,000 00

Infirmary buildings

6,000 00

Infirmary lands.

6,000 00

Total ..

Cash in County Treasury.

$ 52,000 00 20,329 12

VALUE OF PROPERTY IN COUNTY.

Real estate.

$24,738,246 00

Improvements ..

5,498,020 00

Personal property

6,748,655 00

Amount of money.

341,675 00

Total.

$37,326,596 00

Levied for 1872-73. ..

TAXES. $ 327,618 62

Special tax in Alameda Township.

2,015 10

Total

$ 329,633 72

FLOATING DEBT. $ 74,221 94

On November 11, 1872, the Board of Supervisors passed the following resolution, which speaks for itself :-

WHEREAS, Mr. F. K. Shattuck, now and for many years a member and Chairman of this Board, is now about to retire from his duties in this Board,

Resolved, That we do now extend to Mr. Shattuck the thanks of this Board for the able, untiring, and energetic manner in which he has for so long a time discharged his duties among us, and the cordial and uniform kindness and correctness which has always characterized his conduct as a Supervisor and Chairman of this Board.

On November 14, 1872, Alameda County lost one of its brightest ornaments and most efficient public servants in the person of Hon. Edward Tompkins. Senator

253

POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.

Tompkins was distinguished alike for his vast learning as he was for his oratorical gifts, and when the Fell Reaper gathered him to his sheaf he was in the zenith of his fame.

The new Board of Supervisors, composed of W. B. Clement, Alameda Town- ship; Isham Case, Brooklyn Township; J. B. Marlin, Eden Township; J. A. Neal, Murray Township; E. Bigelow, Oakland Township; H. Overacker, Washington Township, took their seats and elected Mr. Case Chairman of their meetings. They at once set apart ten per cent. of the Road Fund for the Special Road and Bridge Fund, as heretofore, the township of Alameda being excepted from the above; and, on the 30th, ordered that the rate of riding and driving across bridges should be restricted to a walk, and that the number of horses and cattle driven over a bridge at one time should be limited to fifteen.

1873 .- Once more have we the county seat controversy, which was re-opened at a meeting of the Supervisors held February 3, 1873, when W. W. Foote and Col. Harry Linden appeared before the Board with the request that a new election be ordered, the gallant Colonel and R. G. Knox giving testimony in regard to the names on the petition. Supervisor Bigelow moved that an election be ordered, which was seconded by Mr. Clement, but was declared lost by the following vote: Ayes-Bigelow, Clem- ent, Case. Noes-Marlin, Neal, and Overacker. A vote that showed a change in the aspect of affairs, for both the Supervisors from Brooklyn and Alameda Townships had changed their colors. It is thought that the reason for this lay in the hope that the Brooklyn portion of the city of Oakland would be chosen as the locality in which the Court House and public offices would be built.

Notwithstanding this last rebuff dealt by the Supervisors, Mr. Foote procured from the Supreme Court an order commanding the Board to call an election, a charge which they could not ignore after a certified copy of the order of the Supreme Court directing a peremptory writ of mandate in the matter of the county seat removal had been served on the Chairman by Mr. Foote, on the 17th of February. It was there- upon moved that an election be called for Saturday, March 29, 1873, and that the Clerk be directed to give the proper order, all the members of the Board, save Super- visor Marlin, who was absent, voting in the affirmative. The following proclamation was subsequently promulgated :-

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 1

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. j

A petition having been heretofore presented to the Board of Supervisors, of the county of Alameda, signed by more than thirteen hundred and fifty-five qualified electors of said county, praying the Board of Supervisors to order an election, to be held to determine the question of removing the county seat of Alameda County from the place where it is now fixed by law, and to determine to what place it shall be removed. And it having been .determined and established satisfactorily, and it appearing to the Board that said petition does contain the requi- site number of names of qualified electors, and is in all respects in compliance and conformity with law, it is therefore ordered by the Board that a special election be held in the county of Alameda on Saturday, March 29, 1873, to determine whether or not the county seat of Alameda County shall be removed from the town of San Leandro, in Alameda County, the place where the same is at present located by law, and to what place the same shall be removed. Said election to be held and conducted, and the returns made in all respects in the manner prescribed by law for general elections in said county.

At such election each elector must vote for the place in the county of Alameda which he prefers as the seat of justice, plainly designating it in his ballot. And it is further ordered by the Board that, at such election the

254

HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

election precincts, polling places, and officers of election of each precinct in said county shall be as follows: [Here follows the usnal description of places constituting election precincts, polling places, officers of election, etc.]

J. V. B. GOODRICH,

By C. G. REED, Deputy Clerk.

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County.

San Leandro, February 25, 1873.

The morning of the day big with fate broke clear and bright; the sympathizers with the opposing factions were early afield, but, seeing that Brooklyn had come up in line with Oakland, the result was a foregone conclusion. Yet a good fight was made on the part of the Edenites. The result was a total ballot of three thousand five hun- dred and twenty-seven votes, divided as follows:

Oakland. .2,254 votes

San Leandro .. .1,180

88 66

Eight other towns in the county. Scattering and rejected. 5

3,527 votes

Thus giving the city of Oakland a majority of nine hundred and eighty-one votes.

We have said the fight was keen, if possible the preliminary skirmishes were more so. The San Leandrans hoped against hope, but slackened not in the combat; they had learned to believe that discord had found its way into the Oakland camp, chiefly on account of the choice of location, an idea they fostered with much solici- tude, for there is no doubt that those favoring the City Hall scheme, and those partial to the plaza plan, upheld their rival claims with a good deal of bitterness, thus should any breach occur it would incline to the benefit of the old county seat. Brooklyn, also, was at fever heat, supported as she was by a large number of citizens, but, on account of a compromise with Oakland, who threatened to place " Oakland Town- ship " on their ballots instead of "Oakland City," which latter included Brooklyn as well as the original section of the city, she put no ticket in the field. But, though the indications pointed to victory, nothing was certain, therefore a number of the citizens of Oakland proceeded to the Council Chamber and presented to the City Fathers the following resolution, which, on being read, was fully discussed, and the deputation assured that the Council had been promised, by prominent citizens, sufficient money to fulfill the promises made in the resolution:

"That in case the people of the county vote for the removal of the county seat, the Council hereby tender the county the free use of the unoccupied portion of the City Hall, the same to be finished by the Council, within sixty days after notice by the Supervisors. And that whenever the Supervisors deem it expedient to erect build- ings, the Council will then dedicate public squares on Broadway for county purposes. And, in the meantime, to secure the county records, the Council will cause to be erected a fire-proof building adjoining the City Hall, for the use of the county, free of charge. And that we are opposed to a division of the county."

Then was read the following petition signed by six hundred persons:

TO THE HONORABLE . THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND- -

We, the undersigned, residents and property-holders in the city of Oakland, respectfully ask that Your Hon- orable Body offer to the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County, for temporary county purposes, for such length of time as the said Board may deem proper to meet, the use of the City Hall of said city, and as much land mmediately adjacent thereto belonging to said city, as may be required for the erection of such other buildings as may be found necessary to the proper and safe management of county affairs. Also, that Your Honorable Body offer to the said Board the two plazas fronting on Broadway, between Fourth and Fifth Streets, in said city, as permanent locations for such county buildings as said Board may in future see fit to erect thereon.

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 35

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