History of Alameda County, California : including its geology, topography, soil, and productions, Part 36

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 36

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).

255

POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.

Contrary arguments now sprang up like mushrooms. It was said that the city had neither the power nor the authority to give away public squares which they held only for specific purposes; others declared that the completion of the City Hall would be of no benefit to any other place in the county save Oakland; while should it become necessary to build, the county could ill afford the construction of expensive buildings suitable to such a rising city. All these various topics were, however, of no avail. Oakland City became the county seat March 29, 1873. On the 5th of April, the Board of Supervisors paid a visit to Oakland to make choice of the three sites placed at their disposal, namely, the City Hall, the Broadway plazas, or Brooklyn (East Oak- land) where Independence square, or failing that, a block of the Larue estate was signified for their acceptance. This duty having been performed by the Supervisors, who were escorted by several prominent citizens, among them being Mayor Spauld- ing, Councilman Ferris, ex-Supervisor Shattuck, Councilman Larue, Judge Glas- cock, etc., adjourned to hold their next meeting at San Leandro on the following Monday, when it was understood their choice should be determined upon. The matter was then taken up, when Councilman Larue, on behalf of the executors of the Larue estate, and the people of Brooklyn, handed in an offer donating for county purposes a certain block of land on Adams Avenue, numbered twenty-two on the map of the old town of San Antonio, and a tender of ten thousand dollars in coin, accompanied by properly executed bonds. Judge Glascock appeared on behalf of the City Coun- cil of Oakland, and read to the Board the resolutions offering to the county the use of the upper portion of the City Hall so long as they might require the same, and promising to place it in a fit condition for reception. The resolution also promised the erection of a fire-proof Hall of Records on the City Hall property, without charge, besides the donation of the plazas already noticed. He also stated that there were citizens present, who were willing to enter into bonds in the sum of fifty thousand dollars, guaranteeing that the offers would be faithfully performed. The care of the Brooklyn interests was in the hands of Leonidas E. Pratt of San Francisco, who belittled the gift from Oakland, and praised that which he represented, stating, that that city had no title to the plazas and no power to turn aside any city property from its original destiny. These statements over, the Chairman declared that they should now proceed to make a selection, but Mr. Bigelow, the Supervisor from Oakland, stated as his opinion that the subject was worthy of further consideration, and sug- gested that it remain over for one week. A resolution accepting the grant of the Larue estate in Brooklyn was next proposed by Supervisor Clement of Alameda and seconded by Marlin of Eden, and on being put to the vote, resulted in its adoption by a vote of six to one.

Here was a contretemps! Where Oakland wanted the county seat she was ignored; the Supervisors all, save Mr. Bigelow, the representative from that city, had voted that it should be located within a few hundred yards of the city's eastern limit, and one mile or more from the City Hall.

This decision gave the whole county, except the residents of Oakland, supreme satisfaction-their bete noir had been conquered. Yet this triumph was short-lived, but we may not anticipate.

As if to put further movement beyond the reach of Oakland, the Supervisors at

256

HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

once advertised for plans and specifications for a Hall of Records, to cost ten thou- sand dollars, while temporary arrangements were made by the citizens of Brooklyn for the reception of the county officers and the archives.

On the 13th of April the Board met at San Leandro, when the matter of county seat removal once more came up. The Chair having made the announcement that the Board would now receive petitions, B. F. Ferris presented himself, and informed the meeting that he was Chairman of a special committee, deputed by the Coun- cil of the city of Oakland to wait upon the Board for the purpose of reading the fol- lowing bond to them :-

Know all men by these presents, that we, the undersigned, undertake and promise, and hereby guarantee, that the City of Oakland will faithfully carry out all that is expressed and contained in the resolutions hereunto annexed.

RESOLUTIONS.

Resolved, That in case the people of the county of Alameda, at the approaching election, vote for the removal of the county seat from San Leandro to the city of Oakland, the City Council of the city of Oakland do hereby tender to the county of Alameda the free use of the unoccupied portion of the City Hall, the same to be finished by the City Council, so as to accommodate the county government, within sixty days after notice from the Board of Supervisors of their acceptance, for such time as the Supervisors of said county may desire; and that whenever the Board of Supervisors deem it expedient to erect buildings for county seat purposes, the City Council will cause, free of cost to said county, to be dedicated for such purposes, the public squares, situated upon Broad- way in said city, usually known as Washington and Franklin Squares, and also known as the plazas: and in the meantime, and for the purpose of securing the public records, the City Council will cause to be erected, free of cost to said county, a good and sufficient fire-proof building upon a lot adjoining the City Hall for the use of the county, free of charge, so long as the county may desire the use of the same for said purposes.

B. F. FERRIS,

SAMUEL MERRITT,

F. K. SHATTUCK, A. C. HENRY,

WM. H. GLASCOCK,

JOHN SCOTT,

GUSTAVE TOUCHARD.

F. WARNER,

P. S. WILCOX, JAMES DE FREMERY,

BENJAMIN AKERLY,

MACK WEBBER,

ISRAEL KNOX,

HENRY DURANT, HENRY RODGERS,

Attest: H. HILLEBRAND, City Clerk.

A resolution passed by the City Council April 13th, to build a Recorder's office, fire-proof throughout, free of expense to the county, and to cost'not less than twenty thousand dollars, was also read by Mr. Ferris, while he, at the same time, presented the following petition from citizens of Washington Township :-

TO THE HONORABLE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY-

The undersigned citizens of Washington Township respectfully request that you will reconsider your action in locating the county seat of Alameda County on Block twenty-two, in the town of Brooklyn, for the reasons :-

Ist. We believe that the location selected is not a desirable one.

2d. In our opinion it does not conform to the intentions of the majority as expressed in the recent election.

3d. We believe that it is not for the best interests of the county financially.

SAMUEL MARSTON,

T. W. MILLARD,

R. BLACOW,

H. CROWELL,

H. M. HOLLAND,

IV. BLACOW,

J. C. PALMER,

M. SIGRIST, PETER CAMPBELL,

E. L. BEARD,

LOUIS SIGRIST,

J. S. MARSTON,

JOHN M. HORNER,

HENRY MULLER,

LORENZO G. YATES,

JOSEPH HIRSCH,

PETER WERRINGER,

R. B. HULL,

A. O. RIX, EDWARD RIX,

O. P. TULLER,

EHRMAN & BACHMAN,

GEO. W. COOK,

STEPHEN MURRAY,

E. F. PALMER,

N. BERGMAN,

PLUTARCO VALLEJO,

JOHN LOWRIE,

C. W. T. BERGMAN,

JOSEPH HERBERT,

W. J. EGGLESTON,

J. L. LANG,

M. M. SMITH,

Jos. MCKEOWN,

ALFRED K. HENRY, ISAAC L. LANG,

G. M. WALTERS,

AUGUST MAY,

W. H. MACK,

AUGUST HEGER,

MICHAEL ROGAN,

R. THRELFALL,

JACOB SALZ, S. SALZ, JOSEPH HORNER,

J. J. STOKES,

W. F. B. LYNCH,

J. J. Walker

257

POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.

The Board of Supervisors ordered the documents presented by Councilman Ferris to be laid on the table.

Next came a communication from Mr. Estudillo stating to the Board that on December 30, 1854, a plot of land for a Court House site had been deeded by his family for so long a period as the county offices should be retained at San Leandro, but now that their removal was contemplated, he requested the Supervisors to execute a quit-claim deed for the land, a statement which was referred to the Judiciary Com- mittee and the District Attorney. The next step taken was the opening of plans for a Hall of Records, those of S. C. Bugbee & Son being adopted on motion. But here a difficulty arose, for the County Auditor, Mr. Goodrich, questioned his right to issue warrants to pay for these plans, should they be adopted, and on the matter being referred to District Attorney Moore that officer gave it as his opinion, guided by a decision in a similar case in Monterey County, that the power to erect county build- ings without first being authorized to do so by a tax levy, was not vested in the Board. The whole subject was then referred to the Committee on Ordinance and Judiciary, who were directed to report at the next meeting. This was held on the 20th of April, when they stated that the point of authority of the Board to direct payment of premiums for plans and specifications, etc., had been carefully considered by them, and they had arrived at the conclusion "that the Board had sufficient power under the law to order said payments, and it is its duty to do so;" therefore the plans of S. C. Bugbee & Son for the Hall of Records were adopted, the Clerk being ordered to advertise for building such, the bids to be received up till the 25th April. Bugbee & Son now presented a bill amounting to two hundred and fifty dollars for the plans, etc., which on being allowed, was handed to the Auditor, who refused its audit, there- upon, on ascertaining this action of Mr. Goodrich, Supervisor Clement moved that the Board employ counsel in the matter, for the Auditor was acting under the advice of the District Attorney. The motion was adopted. On April 25th George W. Babcock was awarded the contract to build a Hall of Records, the price to be eighteen thousand two hundred and forty dollars, while to superintend its construction, a Build- ing Committee was appointed, but this movement was also doomed to failure, for on the 28th April, while in session, the Chairman and each member of the Board were served with a complaint made at the instance of Harry Linden, and an injunction granted by Samuel Bell McKee, Judge of the Third District Court, to restrain the Board from entering into any contract for the erection of any buildings for county purposes, or for the payment of any bills against the county for such purposes. The complaint was required to be answered within ten days.

This document, which was signed by Haight & Sawyer, attorneys for plaintiff, averred that the site selected by the Board of Supervisors was not within the city of Oakland; that the location was procured by the votes and influence of President Case, who was charged with being interested in the adjacent property; that the defendants had advertised for one week for proposals for the erection of a County Recorder's office upon said block, which would involve an expenditure of about eighteen thousand two hundred and forty dollars; that such expenditure would be an incumbrance upon the tax-payers of the county, and that no authority of law existed for the outlay; that the Board had not yet acquired a title to the

258

HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

property, and that unless the Supervisors were restrained from proceeding with their proposed disbursement, great embarrassment would result to the tax-payers and to the county. It then wound up with a general prayer that the defendants might be enjoined from entering into any contract for the erection of a Hall of Records, or other county buildings, and that said injunction might be made perpetual.

Having each been served, as stated above, with the complaint the Board of Supervisors then adjourned.

While the injunction stayed the buildings being proceeded with on block twenty- two, it did not prevent the Brooklyn Joint Stock Company, who had purchased block twenty-one, from proceeding with the erection of a Court House and other public offices there, thus the intention of the decree was set at naught and Brooklyn fixed as the county seat, from which position it appeared as if nothing but an Act of the Legis- lature could oust it. The deed to block twenty-two was presented by the represen- tatives of the Larue estate on the 20th May, which, on its being referred to the District Attorney, that officer reported favorably upon, June Ioth, James Larue in the meantime tendering to the Board the use of a wooden building that stood upon block twenty-one for the use of the county, at the nominal rental of one dollar per month, the new Hall of Records being at the same time offered for seventy-five dollars a month, which propositions were duly accepted, and the District Attorney directed to draw up leases embodying the condition that the property would be rented by the county for one year, with the privilege of two-the leases to be vacated upon three months' notice of either party. The following resolution locating the county seat on block number twenty-one was adopted by the Board June 17, 1873 :-

WHEREAS, This Board did heretofore, by resolution duly passed and entered, in pursuance of law, designate the city of Oakland, in the county of Alameda, State of California, as the county seat and seat of justice of said county, from and after the 25th day of June, A. D. 1873; now be it further resolved and ordered, that the wood and brick buildings erected and being finished upon Block twenty-one, of the late town of Brooklyn (now Oakland), in said county, together with the land upon which they stand, is, and shall be from and after said 25th day of June, 1873, and until the further order of this Board, the county seat and Court House of said county, and the ahiding place of all the offices and records of said county.

The county jail was then located by the following order:

It having been ordered by this Board that the seat of justice be, from June 25, 1873, at the city of Oakland, in this county, and it appearing to the Board that no adequate facilities exist in said city for the safe keeping and detention of prisoners and persons accused of crimes, it is resolved and so ordered that until the further order and action of this Board the jail of said county be and remain in the town of San Leandro, and as at present used.

Thus, after two years of vigorous conflict, was San Leandro deprived of her "capitolian crown;" but was Brooklyn to be allowed to continue in calm possession of her newly-earned honors? That was the question! It was hardly to be expected that the twice baffled citizens of Oakland proper would remain supinely indifferent while its late acquisition of Brooklyn bore away the trophy of victory. The war was to be maintained; the combat must be fought to the bitter end.

The archives were duly transferred to their new home on the 26th June, and then did the county officers take possession of the buildings located at what is now known as East Fourteenth Street and Twentieth Avenue. On the 5th of July

259

POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.

the Board of Supervisors held their first meeting there, and on the 7th the County Court had its first session. On the 15th a certain amount of doubt as to the action taken in accepting the deed of block twenty-two from the Larue estate was manifested, and gave cause for considerable discussion. It had been hinted that the title in fee simple still remained vested in the grantor, who, it was contended, in the event of the county not being able to build upon the land, would maintain his right to it; while, if the title was not vested in the county, any persons that might object to the erection of buildings thereon would have good cause for an injunction; and, should the fee simple of the land be vested in the county, on the other hand, and the county fail to erect buildings thereon, the ground would inevitably be lost to the estate of Larue. The matter was then laid over for further consideration.

Meanwhile the Board of Supervisors expectantly looked forward for the decision from the Supreme Court on an application for an injunction, as they were bent upon the erection of a jail on block twenty-two, and they had those against them who were unfavorable to the scheme and would not hesitate to make the most strenuous opposition. The Supreme Court delayed not in their judgment; the appli- cation was made on the 18th July, and on the 19th the decree was given to the public. Having stated its reasons for granting a temporary injunction, the Court goes on to say :-

Waving the question of whether the action is properly brought by the plaintiff and against the defendants, without making the county by name a party thereto, we are satisfied that the complaint states no cause of action. It is settled in this State that no order made by the Board of Supervisors is valid or binding unless it be legally chargeable to the county; and if claims not legally chargeable to the county are allowed, neither the allowance nor the warrants drawn therefor create any legal liabilities. [People vs. Supervisors of El Dorado County, II Cal., 170; Branch Turnpike Company vs. Supervisors of Yuba County, 13 Cal., 190; Trinity County vs. McCammon, 25 Cal., 117.]

If therefore it be true, as alleged, that no authority of law exists for the expenditure proposed, and neither the defendants nor the Board of Supervisors are authorized by law to make provision for the payment of any claim for or on account of the work proposed, it must follow, as a consequence, that by no legal possibility can the plaintiff or the other tax-payers of the county be injured by the supposed illegal acts of the defendants. The expenditure, if made, would, in that event, be no charge upon the plaintiff's property, and he has, therefore, no interest in the question presented. If illegal claims are allowed by the Board against the county, it will be the duty of the Auditor to refuse to draw warrants therefor; and if warrants are drawn it will then be the duty of the Treasurer to refuse to pay them. The presumption is that these officers will faithfully discharge their duty in the premises.

Order reversed; remittitur to issue forthwith.

We concur:

BELCHER, J. WALLACE, C. J. RHODES, J.

And now, with right on their side, the Supervisors commenced to advertise for plans and specifications for a fifty-thousand-dollar jail, offering a premium of three hundred dollars to the successful architect. On August 6th the tender of G. W. Babcock was accepted for building the proposed structure on block twenty-two for thirty-two thousand and sixty-six dollars, to be paid in county warrants; Mr. Larue, at the same meeting, presenting a new deed for that parcel of land, which was accepted and the erection proceeded with.

At this juncture the Civil Code providing for the division of counties into Super- visoral Districts, according to population, came into operation and gave Oakland

260

HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

Township three Supervisors instead of one as heretofore, thus manifestly improving her position in voting on the vexed question of county seat removal. Yet the coun- try members of the Board, who were all re-elected at the September election, stuck to each other as against their "common foe," and lively times were experienced within the walls of the Board-room. They held their first meeting on the 6th of October, when, after much heated discussion, Isham Case, of Brooklyn, was called to the Chair. Triumph number one for the Brooklynites! The vote went to show the feeling of the Board, it being the three members from Oakland as against the four from the non-metropolitan districts. Henceforward the fights at the Board were extremely bitter; hardly a question that came up but was hotly contested; meanwhile Brooklyn, or rather East Oakland, as it was then being generally called, retained the honors-but the end was not yet !!

Leaving this subject for the nonce, we will now proceed with the several other official actions connected with the year 1873.

A generous offer of two thousand young trees, to be planted on either side of the county road, between San Antonio and San Leandro, was made in the month of March to the Board of Supervisors by Henry S. Fitch, of Fitchburg, but it is not on record that any notice was taken.of the tender, although the Board had in con- templation such an improvement.

On the 17th of June a committee was appointed to divide the county into Supervisor Districts, a duty that was reported completed on August 2d, as follows: First Supervisor District, Murray Township; Second Supervisor District, Washington Township; Third Supervisor District, Eden Township; Fourth Supervisor District, Alameda and Brooklyn Townships; Fifth Supervisor District, all that part of the city of Oakland in Oakland Township south of Tenth Street and east of Adeline Street; Sixth Supervisor District, to comprise all that part of the city of Oakland in Oakland Township north of Tenth Street and east of Adeline Street; Seventh Supervisor District, to comprise all that part of the city of Oakland west of Adeline Street, and all that part of Oakland Township outside of the limits of the city 01 Oakland.

On August 11, 1873, the Republican County Convention met at San Leandro under the presidency of George M. Pinney, when Charles Webb Howard, W. J. Gurnett, and I. A. Amerman were nominated as State Senator and Members of Assembly; and on the 23d, a meeting of the Independent Reform Convention was held at the call of the Democratic County Committee at the same place, Doctor Beverly Cole being Chairman and J. M. Estudillo, Secretary of the Convention. The nominations made by this new party in county politics are curious as showing a fusion of the two opposing factions, and are here produced as an example of attempting to mix oil and water. The information is obtained from Mr. Halley's work: " Hon- Edward Gibbons, Independent, received the nomination for State Senator, and Hon' J. W. Dwinelle, Republican, and Hon. Daniel Inman, Democrat, both former repre- sentatives of the county, were nominated for Assembly. For Treasurer, Robert Far- relly was nominated by acclamation. Mr. Farrelly had been a candidate before the Republican Convention, having hitherto co-operated with that party; but by one of those mysterious political manœuvres, which sometimes surprise people, the nomina-

261

POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.

tion was snatched from him. This was believed to be done through the influence of a'secret politico-religious organization, known as the 'Crescents,' which had a strong delegation in the Convention, and Mr. Farrelly felt free to accept the Independent nomination, which he did. · Ellis E. Haynes, a Republican, was nominated for Sheriff; J. M. Estudillo, Democrat, for County Clerk; Eben C. Farley, Democrat, for Recorder; Henry Evers, Republican, for Auditor; W. W. Foote, Democrat, for Dis- trict Attorney; Newton Ingram, Democrat, for Tax-Collector; Thomas W. Millard, Democrat, for Assessor; V. S. Northey, Independent, Commissioner of Highways; John Doherty, Democrat, Surveyor; Eugene Thurston, Democrat, for Superintendent of Schools; S. W. Mather, Republican, for Coroner; and Dr. W. P. Gibbons, Republi- can, for Public Administrator." At the election which took place on the 3d Septem- ber, the entire Republican ticket was elected save for the offices of State Senator and County Treasurer, in which the Independents were successful, while the candidates for the positions of Coroner and Public Administrator were endorsed by both parties. The new Board of Supervisors, who took their seats on the Ioth October, were: J. A. Neal, District No. 1; H. Overacker, District No. 2; J. B. Marlin, District No. 3; Isham Case, District No. 4; W. B. Hardy, District No. 5; P. S. Wilcox, District No. 6; F. K. Shattuck, District No. 7. This Board was elected for three years and by law were required to divide themselves as nearly as possible into three classes to hold for one, two, and three years respectively. The District Attorney gave it as his opinion that this could be done legally at any time within the first year after their election, where- upon a resolution to classify at once, as follows: two for one year, three for two years, and two for three years, was indefinitely postponed by a vote of four to three, following which, Supervisor Case was elected President of the Board for the ensuing year.

In this fall the People's Independent party was organized in California, with Governor Newton Booth at its head; and, at the judicial election held October 15th Judge Mckinstry was elected on the Independent Ticket, although Judge McKee, the Democratic nominee, had the greater majority in this county. . At this election the candidature of G. E. Freeman and A. M. Church for the office of Justice of the Peace of Murray Township resulted in a tie, but, at a special election held on the 22d November, Mr. Church received the position by a plurality of forty-six votes.

On October 20th a franchise was granted to the San Francisco and Oakland Water Company to lay water-pipes along and across the main county road to San José and "in, through, along, and across any and every other public highway in the county" for the purpose of supplying the inhabitants of said county with pure, fresh water, conditional, among other things, upon water being furnished free for extinguish- ing fires, and at half rates or less for sprinkling purposes to the county.

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 36

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