History of Alameda County, California : including its geology, topography, soil, and productions, Part 37

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 37

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).

On November II, 1873, a resolution was introduced by Supervisor Marlin, that County Assessor Edwin Hunt be requested to resign his office on account of failure to discharge his duties, etc. It was so ordered and a committee appointed to investi- gate into the affairs of that department. It would appear that Mr. Hunt had been arrested on the 21st of October, under a charge of embezzling public funds, but the decision come to by Judge McKee, before the case came up for trial on December 2d, sustained the demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the provisions of the Political Code, authorizing Assessors of counties to collect poll-taxes were inapplica- ble to those officers who were elected before the adoption of the Code.

262

HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

About the same time, Mr. Northey, who had been elected Commissioner of High- ways, was refused, by the County Clerk, a certificate of election, on the ground that the office in this county was not authorized by law. On application to the Third District Court for a writ of mandate to compel the issuance of such certificate, Judge McKee decided against the existence of such an office.

On November 22d there died at the residence of his brother-in-law, James Beebe, at Temescal, Colonel Harry Linden, a gentleman who had been politically prominent in Alameda County. Coming to California in 1850, he maintained his residence here for a long series of years. He was appointed Colonel on Governor Haight's staff; held the office of Public Administrator of the county, and for several years anterior to his death was Commissioner of the Third District Court. Not long before his death, he filled the position of member of the Board of Commissioners and Treasurer of the Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Institute. In this gentleman the Democratic party · lost one of its most ardent supporters.

It would appear that on the 3d November it was resolved that when the Board of Supervisors meets on the same day as such, and as a Board of Directors of the County Infirmary, the allowance of six dollars per day shall be for said day only. It is therefore presumed that this sum was allowed in the first instance for more than one day, as, on the 24th, Supervisor Hardy notified the Board that he had placed the warrant issued to him in his favor for the bill allowed on the 3d November in the hands of the Clerk, and asked that he be allowed to withdraw it as he had ascertained that the same was incorrect. Thereupon, on motion, the bill of each member of the Board allowed at that date was referred to the District Attorney, who was requested to point out any error that might exist. This he did on the 23d December, and after an attempt to legalize their bills for the past year, on February 23, 1874, they decided to surrender the warrants previously issued to them, amounting to two thousand four hundred and seventy-seven dollars and eighty cents, and have issued in lieu thereof warrants for two thousand one hundred and fifty-nine dollars and eighty cents.

During the month of December a bill was introduced into the Legislature to change the sittings of the Supreme Court from Sacramento to Oakland, but to no avail; while, the Assessor's reports at the end of the year showed Alameda to have gained the proud position of being the chief rural county of California. Her assess- ment roll showed a value of thirty-five millions, one hundred and fifty-four thousand, and sixty-five dollars; her total State and county tax amounted to four hundred and thirteen thousand, three hundred and forty-four dollars and sixteen cents; while, her indebtedness was one hundred and eighty-six thousand, six hundred and twenty-five dollars and thirteen cents.

1874 .- Chief among the events that transpired in the year 1874 were the steps taken by the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County towards the improvement of Oakland Harbor; and the completion of the third fight over the county seat.

On January 12, 1874, the following memorial to Congress in respect to the improvements of Oakland Harbor, was adopted by the Board of Supervisors :- ,

WHEREAS, 'It is now understood by your petitioners that an official survey has been made by officers of the United States for the purpose aforesaid, and that a plan is about to be reported by the Board of Supervisors of the Pacific Coast,

WHEREFORE, Your petitioners, on behalf of the citizens of Alameda County and of the city of Oakland, anp

263

POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.

in view of the very important geographical location of the harbor of the city of Oakland, relative to the marine and land traffic and travel connecting the shores of Asia and Europe across the continent of America, and joining the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards of the United States, most respectfully ask that Your Honorable Bodies will be pleased to grant such an appropriation for the improvement of the harbor of Oakland, California, as may he recommended by the Board of Engineers of the Pacific Coast and endorsed by the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army. And further your petitioners will ever pray, etc.

Like memorials were transmitted by the City Council of Oakland, and the Board of Trustees of San Leandro, which culminated in the appropriation of one hundred thousand dollars for the commencement of the work. Its further progress will be found recorded in our history of the city of Oakland.

An attempt was made about this time to incorporate Berkeley as a town, but the farmers being unfavorably disposed to the scheme, it was not brought to full fruition. It was also attempted, by a bill introduced in the Legislature, to take a strip of land of about two miles from off the southern portion of Alameda County and annex it to that of Santa Clara, but this too failed; while, the Tide Land Commissioners had it on the tapis to dispose of a part of the tide land at the head of Lake Merritt, but this also failed on the passage of an Act ceding the territory in question to the city of Oakland.

It was in the Supreme Court that the county seat question made its reappearance in 1874. The manner of its resuscitation was in this wise. Upon George W. Bab- cock, the contractor for building the jail, making application to Auditor Goodrich for payment of his claim on that account, that officer declined to allow it, therefore the first-named gentleman applied to the Supreme Court for a peremptory writ of man- date to compel the County Auditor to allow his demand. The Court gave a decree in favor of Babcock, and thereafter a bill was passed by the Legislature, March 28, 1874, allowing him the sum of one thousand dollars and no more.

On February 4, 1874, "An Act to enable the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda to erect the county buildings of said county upon Washington and Franklin Plazas, in the city of Oakland," was approved, and is as follows :--

Section One .- Whenever so directed by a resolution passed by the City Council of the city of Oakland, at a regular meeting of said Council, the President and Clerk of the said Council shall execute, under the common seal of said city, and acknowledge grant from said city of the plazas situate in said city and known as Washing- ton and Franklin Plazas, to the county of Alameda, for the purpose of erecting thereon a County Court House and other county buildings for said county.

Section Two .- Such grant, when so executed and acknowledged, shall be delivered to the President of the Board of Supervisors of said county, who shall cause it to be recorded in the Recorder's office. Upon the receipt of such grant the Board of Supervisors of said county shall have power to remove the county buildings of said county to said plazas, and to erect therein such county buildings as they may be authorized by law to construct.

Section Three .- In case such plazas shall be conveyed to the county of Alameda, as hereinbefore provided, and the same, or either of them, shall not be occupied by the county of Alameda for the purposes aforesaid, within four years from the delivery of such grant, the city of Oakland may have and maintain an action against the county of Alameda for a reconveyance to it of the property not thus occupied.

Section Four .- This Act shall take effect immediately.

This bill was brought to the attention of the Supervisors at their meeting held on the 11th February, when it was read; besides, a certified copy of a resolution passed by the City Council of Oakland, and a deed, duly signed, was presented by Mr. Shattuck, who moved that the conveyance be accepted, but it was adversely met by the "Big Four" from the rural districts, who stated that they were but the mouth-

264

HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

pieces of their constituents, who were all inimical to the accepting of the proposition. Mr. Case, who, like the ill-fated Duke of Brunswick on the field of Quartre Bras, "rushed into the field, and foremost, fighting, fell," contended, with much warmth, that the lease was illegal, and that the change had been by no manner of means required by a majority of the people, he finally moving that the resolution be indefi- nitely postponed. Then ensued one of those conflicts of words that do not confer honor upon the august body charged with conducting the affairs of the county. The upshot of the whole was, however, that the unfailing four carried the motion of indefi- nite postponement against the voice of the usual three, and ended the matter so far as the Board of Supervisors was concerned, while Oakland had exhausted all her resources in that quarter.

Of the succeeding action, Mr. Halley, who has evidently given the question his closest attention, says, the Country Delegation at Sacramento could only be par- tially relied upon. Senator Gibbons had expressed no opinion on the matter, and had made no pledges in this regard when before the people of the county seeking election. He had, in fact, refused to commit himself, and had consequently met with opposition where he would otherwise have gained votes. He was an Oakland man, to be sure, but then he had the example of Senator Tompkins, who had incurred the hostility of the country people on account of his alleged special advocacy of Oak- land, to warn him. Assemblyman Amerman, until the time of the removal to Brooklyn, had conducted the fight for San Leandro, and it could not be supposed that his support would be forthcoming. Mr. Gurnett, alone, of the three delegates, was the only man who could be relied upon to warmly espouse the cause of Oakland in the Legislature, and this, of course, he did.

Then there was the question-What could the Legislature legally do that had not already been done? Could it properly interfere in deciding what part of a town a Court House was to be located in? The matter, at any rate, was to be tested, as Oakland had already exhausted every other resource.

At a meeting of the City Council, held on the 16th February, Mayor Durant sent in a message in which he urged the Corporation to take the initiative in a move- ment for the division of the county, with a view to the erection of the city of Oak- land and the adjoining townships into a separate county, to receive the name of Oakland. No action, however; was taken on this message, which no doubt was merely meant as a threat to be put in force under certain contingencies. With the aid of the daily papers, which had very warmly entered into the controversy in favor of the claims of the city, public opinion was aroused to action and the legislative remedy sought. The best legal opinion was obtained, and a bill drawn up to suit the emer- gency, at the instance of a committee having the matter in hand, called the Citizens' Union, which consisted of prominent property owners. By this bill, which was enti- tled: "An Act to provide for the erection of county buildings in the county of Ala- meda, and for the issuance of bonds therefor," the Board of Supervisors was directed to issue eight per cent. twenty years' bonds, to the amount of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, to be redeemed by an annual tax, which raised one thousand dol- lars. The Governor was required to appoint five Commissioners, who were to have sole management of the money. They were to take possession of the Oakland

John Johnson

265

POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.

plazas and proceed to erect such county buildings as they might deem proper. They were authorized to complete the jail then erecting on Block twenty-two, if they saw fit. The bill contained many restrictions, and it was intended that the Supervisors should not have any control over it, or in any way defeat the progress of the work, even by resigning.

Doctor Gibbons introduced the bill without comment in the Senate, and it soon went before the Committee on Corporations. Both sides were advised, and, on the evening of March 3d, the matter was discussed. Supervisor Case, E. G. Mathews, and William Meek, were heard on behalf of the Supervisors; W. W. Foote followed as counsel for the city, speaking more than an hour. Then Senator Gibbons declared himself. He was in favor of the bill, but said he had offered a compromise to locate the county seat in the vicinity of Tubbs' Hotel, but the idea was not tolerated. Then followed a speech by Mr. Gurnett, before and after which there was a running cross- fire of assertions and contradictions from both sides.

It will be seen that so far Mr. Amerman had taken no part in this year's inter- necine warfare. The Sacramento correspondent of the Oakland News, Mr. Harwood, who took a very zealous part in the controversy, and may be said to have kept the life in it for the Oakland people, wrote very despondingly one day that Amerman would "oppose any legislation intended to break the ring in the Board of Super- visors," and this left the matter in not an altogether encouraging condition. The Chairman of the Committee on Corporations, too, was Senator Farley, who, two years before, had championed the cause of San Leandro in the Senate, in opposition to Senator Tompkins.

On the 5th of the month, the committee met again and heard further statements in reference to the matter. The Chairman said, on calling the committee to order, the question before them was whether they should take from the Board of Supervisors certain functions they were vested with by law; whether it was good policy in this case for them to do so. Supervisor Shattuck appeared and made a full statement of the existing troubles. He cited the example of San Francisco, where the erection of county buildings had been taken out of the hands of the Supervisors and vested in Commissioners. The subject of title to the plazas was discussed, when Mr. Shattuck stated how they were donated and what they were worth; and Senator Gibbons said the original owners of the town site, Hays and Caperton, had recognized the plazas as public property, and for twenty years they had beenf so considered. Mr. Gurnett read a letter from Judge Glascock, Attorney for Hays and Caperton, stating that he was authorized and would execute any kind of deed that was required. The Chair- man asked what was the general sentiment of the people on the question. Shattuck replied that they denounced the action of the Supervisors. Senator Laine asked how the vote of the county would stand on the proposition, when Shattuck answered, "two to one." Case asked if the jail then building would be sacrificed; Shattuck then went into a statement of the building difficulty; showed how the Supervisors were elected for three years under the Code; how they had endeavored to obtain a classification of the Board as to years of service, and been defeated, and how, under a late decision of the Supreme Court, the Board could raise four hundred thousand dollars annually by taxation and put up fine buildings at the expense of the people. F. J. Clark. of

266

HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

Livermore, said those who voted for removal in Murray Township were in favor of the plaza proposition. Mr. Shattuck said, in Washington Township, many represen- tative men were in favor of the Oakland plazas. Case said that the jail would be completed in thirty days. Senator Gibbons stated that he had received a letter from Samuel Marston, of Centreville, stating that a majority of the people of Washington Township favored the pending bill. Mr. Mathews read an article from the Oakland News, which stated that if the Brooklyn people would annex to Oakland, her plazas should be included in an offer to the county. Senator Gibbons replied to this that he had offered to compromise in favor of the plaza near Tubbs' Hotel, in Brooklyn, a most beautiful location, but Mr. Case paid no attention to the proposition. Case and Mathews said they would be very glad to give up the Court House and get back their town government, and be once more independent of Oakland. And here follows another pause in the controversy before the final and abrupt close of the protracted farce.

After this Mr. Harwood wrote to his paper that success was quite certain, if the bill was got through the Senate. Gurnett could get it easily through the Assembly whether Amerman opposed it or not. A day or two after there was suddenly a talk of compromise in favor of the Washington (Brooklyn) Plaza, near Tubbs' Hotel; then an open declaration that Case would agree to a compromise by which the jail would remain on block twenty-two, and the Court House be built near Tubbs' Hotel; and that Senator Gibbons was a party to the compromise. Then came a cry of "treason," and a declaration that Oakland was without a particle of public spirit. There was a sudden awakening, however, Senator Gibbon's course was criticised, and a public meet- ing called by "Many Tax-Payers" on Saturday evening, March 14th, in Brayton Hall, Oakland, whose rallying cry was "No Compromise!" Hon. Zach. Montgomery, on motion of Judge Ferris, was voted to the chair; W. D. Harwood and A. W. Bishop, the editors of the News and the Transcript, were appointed Secretaries. Then fol- lowed a long list of Vice-Presidents. Judge Ferris moved the first resolution instruct- ing "our Senators and Members of Assembly to use their best endeavors to pass, without delay, the original bill in relation to the removal and location of the county buildings, and opposing their location elsewhere than upon the Broadway plazas." Senator Gibbons was called for, but was not forthcoming. Mr. Gaskill said he was at the Grand Central Hotel, and moved the appointment of a committee to wait upon him, where he was accordingly waited upon by Messrs. Gaskill, Wilcox, and E. Bigelow. They subsequently reported that they had seen the Senator, but he excused his non- attendance on the ground of illness. He admitted being a party to the compromise, and would not pledge himself to the removal to the plazas, as contingencies might arise that would influence him. Mr. Shattuck gave his version of the new develope- ment, with which he associated the name of A. A. Cohen. He said Senator Farley would report the bill on Monday, unless he received instructions to the contrary, and expressed the opinion that the people were opposed to any compromise. Judge Blake followed in a speech, wondering at the conduct of Senator Gibbons, and opposing a compromise. This was to allow the jail to remain on block twenty-two, and pay the Larue estate twelve thousand dollars for the land. Hon. R. C. Gaskill fol- lowed in a "ringing" speech, condemning the course of the Senator, and declaring

267

POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.

the Senate would pass the bill in spite of him. Supervisor Wilcox made a speech in which he described the horror of a "stench," and said he would prefer to have the county buildings back to San Leandro, or even Alvarado, than that they should remain where they were. He favored "no compromise." He accused the members of the Board of Supervisors of telegraphing each other with their thumbs, whenever a vote on this question was taken. Marlin had told him he would vote for the plazas but when thumbs went up he "fell down." Mr. Foote accused some of the members of the Board with perjury, and spoke encouragingly of the bill. He believed Doctor Gibbons would withdraw his support from the compromise; he knew that Amerman who was a prospective candidate for Congress, would not dare to oppose it; and Gurnett, he was sure, was in favor of it. The resolution was unanimously carried, and a committee of five appointed to go to Sacramento, to assist in the passage of the Senate bill. The proceedings concluded by taking up a subscription to defray expenses. The Secretaries were instructed to furnish the delegation with a copy of the resolution, and then the meeting adjourned, feeling that success would surely follow.

The meeting had its effect, and the result was an immediate surrender. The committee appointed proceeded to Sacramento on Sunday. They met at Amerman's apartments, and talked the matter over. It was stated that Case would not oppose the bill if the Commissioners were stricken out and the Supervisors allowed to erect the buildings. All but Judge Ferris agreed to this. Senator Gibbons said the bill should be so altered; it was the weak part of the bill, and the concession was a trifling one. Amerman said he had taken no part in the contest, but could not, as expected, champion block twenty-two. He favored the bill with the Commissioners stricken out. Gurnett did not care who did the work, so long as the buildings were placed on the plazas; so that the whole delegation were united, and the bill would go through both Houses without a word of dissent.

About midnight Case was called upon. He was not in favor of the bill in any shape, but as all Alameda County's representatives had united to pass it; as an officer of the law, he should obey. He would not do anything to obstruct the erection of the buildings, and as a Supervisor he would act in connection with all building oper- ations on the Broadway plazas, just as if they were on the location of his first choice. The praise of Mr. Case, as a man of honor, who had made a gallant fight for his sec- tion and friends, then followed. He had never broken his promise nor violated his word, and all that remained to end this prolonged county-seat controversy-to finish this three years' local warfare-was the arrangement of the formalities. On the fol- lowing Thursday, Senator Farley reported a substitute for the original bill. Gibbons moved a suspension of the rules, in order to consider the bill at once. Edgerton opposed it, and said he had been requested to oppose it, and wanted time to consider their reasons. Evans said the committee had heard both sides, and the substitute was the result. Gibbons explained; and on a call of ayes and noes there were thir- teen noes to eighteen ayes, showing that the Brooklyn party were far from being without strength, even after this compromise was concluded; and it is doubtful, con- sidering that this was within twelve days of the end of the session, if the fight had been kept up, the original bill could be carried through.

268

HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

A few days after there was a hitch; some of the Brooklyn men-Larue and Cam- eron-having heard what was going on, proceeded to Sacramento and rather disjointed matters. Some new arrangement was effected, however, and the parties appeased, and on the 19th the bill passed the Senate unanimously and went to the Assembly. It provided for the issue of bonds to the amount of two hundred thousand, instead of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars as at first proposed, and allowed the deeding back to James Larue of block twenty-two should the county jail be removed. In case the jail should be completed on block twenty-two, the Supervisors were to pay Mr. Larue a reasonable compensation for the property. Mr. Larue, however, did not want the jail on his property, and simply asked for a return of the land, which of course could not be, and was refused. There were several Brooklyn gentlemen pres- ent, who did not relish the turn things had taken, as some of them had invested largely in the company to put up the temporary county buildings; and it was no wonder if they felt as if they had in some way been deceived.

The bill passed the Assembly on the 20th, and at four o'clock on the 25th it was signed by the Governor, and became a law. Until the very last there was some oppo- sition to it, and there remained yet a dread that the majority of the Supervisors would carry on a hostility, or that the legality of the bill would be tested in the courts. Indeed, a slight move in this direction was made, but all opposition was soon aban- doned. The jail building on block twenty-two was pulled down, and the material removed to Washington Plaza, where it was reconstructed. This little matter cost the county about twenty thousand dollars. As we have seen, a bill was passed through the Legislature allowing Mr. Babcock, the contractor, one thousand dollars for law expenses in his contest with the Auditor, who very injudiciously put the county to that and other outlays, in taking a position that the Judges made clear to him he had no right to take, in disputing an order of the Supervisors.

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 37

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