USA > California > Alameda County > History of Alameda County, California : including its geology, topography, soil, and productions > Part 47
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 the 14th of the same month, the Judge to whom the petition was referred, Guillermo Castro, reported that, in view of the report of Ignacio Martinez, the tract asked for might be granted to the petitioner.
On the 21st of June, 1842, the land was granted to the widow of Briones, the Governor stating that, in view of the petition, the foregoing reports, "and all other matters necessary to be considered (the other matters necessary to be considered undoubtedly included the former petition of Briones and Peralto's report thereon), Doña Maria Manuela Valencia is declared owner of the place named in Boca de la Cañada de Pinole, bounding with the Rancho of Don Ignacio Martinez, with that of Don Julio Wil, and with that of Candelario Valencia;" and in the formal grant of the same date the land is described by the same boundaries, being limited in the third condition to three square leagues, as shown by the diseño annexed, the sobrante remaining to the convenient uses of the nation. (Exhibit 32, Adams, from the archives in the Surveyor-General's office.) In bounding the general tract out of which the quantity should be surveyed to Mrs. Briones with "the Rancho of Don Ignacio Martinez," the boundaries of El Pinole, as declared by the Governor a few days before in the grant to Martinez, were unquestionably meant.
When this claim was before the District Court upon petition for confirmation, the testimony of José de Jesus, son of Ignacio Martinez, was taken. Being asked what he knew in regard to the boundaries of the tract, the witness stated that on the north it was bounded by the Rancho of Ignacio Martinez, father of the witness, called El Pinole; that the original map (diseño) was made by him in 1841, and that it was correct; that it was the original map presented by Doña M. M. Valencia to the Governor when she petitioned for the land, and that he made it for that purpose; and that when he made it the houses, corral, and garden were on the Rancho as repre- sented on the map. The witness further stated that he became acquainted with the boundaries of La Boca by going over the land with a son of Mrs. Briones for the purpose of making the map; that he had lived on his father's Rancho since April, 1830, and ridden over the La Boca Rancho "thousands of times," and that he was well acquainted with everything connected with it. (Exhibit 58, Blum, from archives in Surveyor-General's office.)
From the foregoing I conclude that the La Boca Rancho was not within the boundaries of El Pinole as established by the Governor's grant in 1842, the first official definition of the exterior boundaries of that place. And taking the facts above stated in connection with the testimony of William Richardson (vol. 5, 245, Evidence), C. Briones, and Napoleon B. Smith (vol. 4, pp. 561 and 720, Evidence), delivered to the Board in the case of El Pinole, and the location of the tract called
331
MEXICAN GRANTS.
Corral de Galindo, and the Cuchilla de Chemisal, as laid down on the connected map hereinbefore mentioned and on the official map of Mr. Minto's survey, it would appear that the northern patented line of La Boca very nearly represents the calls of the grant and decree in the Pinole case for Pinole's southern exterior boundary in this locality. It follows, therefore, that La Boca was not surplus (sobrante) of El Pinole, and as the District Court decreed the claim of Mrs. Briones to be good and valid to the land known by the name of " La Boca de la Cañada del Pinole" to the extent of three square leagues " within the boundaries so described in the grant and map on file in the records," and as the grant and diseño call for Acalanes and Pinole for bounda- ries. and as Acalanes calls for Pinole as one of its boundaries, it necessarily follows, from the situation of these several grants, that La Boca was not surplus of any of the five grants mentioned in the grant to the Castros of 1841, the presumption of law being that La Boca was located within the boundaries called for in the decree of confirmation.
Again, La Boca was not vacant land in 1841, within the meaning of the decree of confirmation in the sobrante case. The evidence in the case of the La Boca upon peti- tion for confirmation, as well as that of José de Jesus Martinez, hereinbefore referred to, and that of Peralta in his report, show a continued occupancy and possession from about 1831 till long after April, 1841, by the Briones family, the widow continuing in occu- pancy and possession after the death of her husband, and that the land was improved by them as alleged in the petitions therefor of 1839 and 1842. It was the very land occupied and in the possession of her husband that Mrs. Briones petitioned for, and it makes no difference whether it is called La Boca de la Cañada del Pinole, San Felipe, or Corral de Galindo.
In the opinion of the Board in that case, it was stated that the depositions on file showed a long residence on the land by the grantee, and established very clearly a substantial compliance with the conditions of the grant, and that the only obstacle to confirmation was to be found in the proof of boundaries. The decree of the Board rejecting the claim was reversed by the District Court, and the claim was decreed to be good and valid, and it has been surveyed and patented accordingly.
It was manifestly against the policy of the Mexican Government to grant lands to one party that were improved and in possession of another; and petitions were referred to the proper magistrate for the purpose of ascertaining whether they called for lands occupied by others. In the very matter of the petition of Martinez it is seen that, although he asked for land by the name of a place that might have embraced the establishment of Briones, and Briones had no grant from the Government, yet the possession of Briones was recognized as well as that of Martinez, and the land possessed by him was carefully excluded from the grant to Martinez.
Now, as the Governor recognized and protected the possession of Briones; as that possession was continued by his widow, and was of the same land; as proceed- ings were pending before the Government for a grant of this land at the time of the grant to the Castros; as upon the death of Briones the claim for the grant was con- tinued in the name of his widow, she alleging the possession that had continued since 1831; and as the grant to the widow was made in view of all the proceedings men- tioned, and necessarily in consideration of the uninterrupted possession of the Briones
332
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
family since 1831, it follows that the possession was not a trespass. The presumption is that the final survey followed the decree of confirmation; that it embraces the quantity of land thus possessed as limited in the decree; that it correctly shows the boundaries thereof, and that the land was surveyed within the boundaries mentioned in the decree; and, as the possession which continued from 1831 was not a trespass, it extended to the boundaries of the claim as surveyed and patented; all of which results in this conclusion: That in 1841 the land surveyed as the Rancho La Boca de la Cañada del Pinole was not vacant.
Finally, it seems to me that the Mexican authorities, having jurisdiction in the premises, decided, in 1842, that the land known as La Boca de la Cañada del Pinole was not embraced within any former grant. The reference of the petition of Mrs. Briones to the auxiliary Judge of Contra Costa required him to report whether "the land referred to belonged to any individual, with all other matters that may be necessary." His report, as well as that of Martinez, and that of Estrado, the Señor Prefect of the district, and the action of the Governor thereon in making the grant to Mrs. Briones, which, he stated, was in consideration of those reports, and all other matters necessary to be considered, amounted to a decision that the land granted. was not included in any former grant.
In view of the facts and the legal conclusions relative to this matter, it would be just as consistent to hold that the land surveyed under the grant to Martinez was vacant sobrante land in 1841, as to hold that that which was surveyed under the Briones grant was vacant sobrante land at that time; and the survey of El Sobrante might as well include the one tract as the other. The grants of Pinole and La Boc i are precisely similar in character, and were virtually the result of the final determina- tion of the same proceedings before the Mexican Government pending and undecided April 23, 1841.
I therefore decide that no part of the Rancho La Boca de la Cañada del Pinole should be embraced in the survey of the Rancho El Sobrante.
The Minto survey not only embraces the larger portion of the La Boca, but also a small part of the Rancho Laguna de los Palos Colorados (Moraga's claim), as patented, and does not include all of the land embraced in the decree as herein con- strued. It is therefore set aside.
The remaining question is with regard to the tract marked "No. 7" on the Board- man map, and as public land on the Minto plat of survey of El Sobrante. I do not consider that that tract lies between the five ranchos mentioned, within the meaning of the decree, and it will accordingly be excluded from the final survey.
You will therefore direct a new survey to be made of the following boundaries: Beginning at post S. P. No. 67, at the terminus of course No. 195 in the patented line of the San Pablo Rancho; thence in a direct line to post P. R. No. 4, terminus of course No. 4, in the patented line of El Pinole Rancho; thence with the patented line of El Pinole to a point therein at which the westernmost line of the Rancho La Boca de la Cañada del Pinole as patented extended northwardly intersects said line of El Pinole; thence with the patented line of the Rancho La Boca de la Cañada del Pinole to the. point at which the western patented line of Acalanes intersects the same; thence with the said line of Acalanes to the north patented line of the Rancho Laguna de.
333
MEXICAN GRANTS.
los Palos Colorados; thence with the last-named line and the same extended west to the eastern patented line of the Rancho San Antonio; thence northward with the patented lines of the Ranchos San Antonio and San Pablo to the place of beginning.
The decision of your office is modified accordingly, and the papers of the case are herewith returned. Very respectfully,
S. J. KIRKWOOD, Secretary.
This decision has been confirmed by Secretary Teller, and cannot be further opened.
TABLE OF LAND CLAIMS.
Domingo and Vicente Peralta, claimants for San Antonio, granted August 16, 1820, by Don Pablo Vicente de Sala to Luis Peralta; claim filed January 21, 1852, confirmed by the Commission February 7, 1854, by the District Court January 26, 1855, and by the Supreme Court in 19 Howard, 343; containing 18,848.98 acres. Patented, February 10, 1877.
José Dolores Pacheco, claimant for Santa Rita, granted April 10, 1839, by Juan B. Alvarado to J. D. Pacheco; claim filed, February 21, 1852, rejected by the Com- mission, April 25, 1854, confirmed by the District Court August 13, 1855, and decree affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 23 Howard, 495; containing 8,894.01 acres. Patented March 18, 1865.
José Noriega and Roberto Livermore, claimants for Las Positas, two square leagues, granted April 10, 1839, by Juan B. Alvarado to Salvio Pacheco; claim filed February 27, 1852, confirmed by the Commission, February 14, 1854, and by the District Court February 18, 1859; containing 8,880 acres. Patented May 25, 1872.
Fulgencio Higuera, claimant for Agua Caliente, two square leagues, granted October 13, 1836, by Nicolas Gutierrez, and April 4, 1839, by Juan B. Alvarado, to F. Higuera; claim filed February 27, 1852, confirmed by the Commission February 14, 1854, and appeal dismissed November 24, 1856; containing 9,563.87 acres. Patented April 17, 1858.
José de Jesus Vallejo, claimant for Arroyo del Alameda, four square leagues, granted August 30, 1842, by Juan B. Alvarado to J. de Jesus Vallejo; claim filed March 2, 1852, confirmed by the Commission October 18, 1853, by the District Court · March 2, 1857, and appeal dismissed July 28, 1857; containing 17,705.38 acres. Patented January 1, 1858.
Juan José Castro, claimant for El Sobrante, eleven square leagues, granted April 23, 1841, by Juan B. Alvarado to J. J. Castro; claim filed March 9, 1852, confirmed by the Commission July 3, 1855, and appeal dismissed April 6, 1857.
Andres Pico et al., claimants for Mission San José, 30,000 acres, granted May 5, 1846, by Pio Pico to Andres Pico and Juan B. Alvarado; claim filed March 22, 1852, confirmed by the Commission December 18, 1855, and rejected by the District Court June 30, 1859.
334
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
José Maria Amador, claimant for San Ramon four square leagues and eighteen hundred varas, granted August 17, 1835, by José Figueroa to J. M. Amador, claim filed March 23, 1852, confirmed by the Commission August 1, 1854, by the District Court January 14, 1856, and appeal dismissed January 10, 1857. Patented March 18, I 865.
Antonio Suñol et al., claimants for El Valle de San José, described by bound- aries, granted April 10, 1839, by Juan B. Alvarado to Antonio Maria Pico et al., claim filed May 18, 1852, confirmed by the Commission January 31, 1854, by the District Court January 14, 1856, and decision of the United States Supreme Court as to the right of appeal in 20 Howard, 261; containing 48,435.92 acres. Patented March 15, 1865.
José Joaquin Estudillo, claimant for San Leandro, one square league, granted October 16, 1842, by Juan B. Alvarado to Joaquin Estudillo; claim filed May 31, 1852, confirmed by the Commission January 9, 1855, by the District Court May 7, 1857, and by the U. S. Supreme Court; containing 6,829,58 acres. Patented July 15, 1863.
Tomas Pacheco and Augustin Alviso, claimants for Potrero de los Cerritos, three square leagues, granted March 23, 1844, by Manuel Micheltorena to T. Pacheco and A. Alviso; claim filed May 31, 1852, confirmed by the Commission February 14, 1854, by the District Court October 29, 1855, and by the United States Supreme Court; containing 10,610.26 acres. Patented February 21, 1866.
Antonio Maria Peralta, claimant for part of San Antonio, two square leagues, granted August 16, 1820, by Pablo V. de Sola to Luis Peralta; claim filed June 18, 1852, confirmed by the Commission February 7, 1854, by the District Court December 4, 1855, and appeal dismissed October 20, 1857. Patented February 3, 1858.
Ignacio Peralta, claimant for part of San Antonio, two square leagues, granted August 16, 1820, by Pablo V. de Sola to Luis Peralta; claim filed June 18, 1852, con- firmed by the Commission February 7, 1854, by the District Court January 13, 1857, and appeal dismissed April 20, 1857. Patented February 10, 1877.
Guillermo Castro, claimant for part of San Lorenzo, six hundred varas square, granted February 23, 1841, by Juan B. Alvarado to G. Castro and for San Lorenzo, six square leagues, granted October 24, 1843, by Manuel Micheltorena to G. Castro; claim filed July 8, 1852, confirmed by the Commission February 14, 1853, by the District Court July 6, 1855, and appeal dismissed January 16, 1858. Patented April 14, 1877.
Barbara Soto et al., claimants for San Lorenzo, one and a half square leagues, granted October 10, 1842, by Manuel Micheltorena and January 20, 1844, by Juan B. Alvarado to Francisco Soto; claim filed January 22, 1853, confirmed by the Commis- sion April 24, 1855, by the District Court April 23, 1857, and appeal dismissed April 29, 1857. Patented February 14, 1865.
335
MEXICAN GRANTS.
Archbishop Joseph Sadoc Alemany, claimant for Mission San José, in Alameda County, founded under Carlos IV., June 11, 1797; claim filed February 19, 1853, con- firmed by the Commission December 18, 1855, appeal dismissed in Northern District, March 16, 1857, and in Southern District March 15, 1858; containing 28.33 acres. Patented March 3, 1858.
Guillermo Castro, claimant for land granted January 14, 1840, by Juan" B. Alvarado to G. Castro; claim filed March 2, 1853, rejected by the Commission, May 15, 1855, and appeal dismissed for failure of prosecution March 9, 1857.
Charles B. Strode, claimant for part of San Antonio, 5,000 acres, granted by P. V. de Sola and Luis Antonio Arguello to Luis Peralta; claim filed March 2, 1853. Discontinued.
Charles B. Strode, claimant for part of San Antonio, 10,000 acres, granted by P. V. de Sola and Luis Antonio Arguello to Luis Peralta; claim filed March 2, 1853. Discontinued.
TABLE
SHOWING THE NUMBER OF LAND COMMISSIONER CLAIMS, NAME OF RANCH, NAME OF CONFIRMES, NUMBER OF ACRES, AND DATE OF PATENT OF THE DIFFERENT SPANISH AND MEXICAN GRANTS IN ALAMEDA COUNTY, SUPPLIED BY THE SURVEYOR- GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA.
No.
NAME OF RANCH.
NAME OF CONFIRMEE.
ACRES.
REMARKS.
273
San Antonio.
Ygo. Peralta. .
9,416.66
Patented, February 3, 1858.
4
San Antonio.
V. and D. Peralta.
18,848.98
February 10, 1877.
274
San Antonio.
A. M. Peralta.
15,206.59
66
June 25, 1874.
256
San Leandro.
J. J. Estudillo.
6,829 . 58
July 15, 1863.
285
San Lorenzo
Barbara Soto, et al.
6,685.85
66
April 14, 1877.
524
San Lorenzo.
Guillermo Castro
26,722.52
66
April 17, 1858.
82
Arroyo de la Alameda
J. de Jesus Vallejo.
17,705.38
January 1, 1858.
79
Cañada de los Vaqueros
R. Livermore and Noriega
2,080.00
Before the U. S. Surveyor-General
609
Mission of San José.
Bishop Alemany . .
28.33
Patented, March 3, 1858.
IIO
Mission of San José.
Andres Pico and Alvarado
Rejected, June 30, 1859.
El Pescadero.
A. M. Pico and H. Nagle.
89.00
Patented, March 10, 1865. (Part in San Joaquin County.)
77
Las Positas.
R. Livermore, J. Noriega. .
8,880.00 10,610.26
Patented, May 25, 1872. 66 February 21, 1866.
258
Potrero de los Cerritos
A. Alviso and D. Pacheco.
6,040.00
66 March 18, 1865
60
Santa Rita.
Yountz Administrator.
8,894.01
Patented, March 18, 1865.
231
Valle de San José.
Suñol & Bernales.
48,435 .92
March 15, 1865.
Area of Private Grants
196,036 .95
Area of Public Land.
275,963.05
Total Area in Acres
472,000 .00
February 14, 1865.
78
Agua Caliente.
Fulgencio Higuera.
9,563.87
(Part in Contra Costa County.)
128
San Ramon ..
J. M. Amador.
(Part in Contra Costa County.)
-
336
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
THE CRIMINAL HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY.
A ND the Lord said unto Cain, Where is thy brother ? And he said, I know not: am I my brother's keeper? And he said, what has thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which had opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; when thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield to thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." Thus is graphically given us on the page of divine history the record of the first murder that ever the sun shone upon or the eye of God looked upon, and the woful curse pronounced upon the author of that foulest of all crimes by the Supreme Judge of the universe. And how tenaciously has that curse followed the generations of life-takers down from Cain to the present day. "A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth!" How natural when a man has taken that from a fellow-man which no power of his can restore, no amends make any adequate reparation, has taken his life and shed his blood, to become a fugitive! The first impulse is to flee. A power he knows not of until the horrid deed is done impels him on, and ere he is aware he has become a fugitive. And he becomes a vagabond too! No matter if the lax operations of the Courts allow him to return to society, the deed has been committed, the blood is on his hands just the same, and all who know him can see it. He can see it, too, far more plainly than others, for it is burned into his consciousness by the flaming tongue of conscience, a chasm is riven between him and human society, and wherever he goes, if it is known that he has blood upon his hands, the finger of humanity is pointed at him, and he hears the voice of outraged and, oftentimes, cheated justice, exclaiming in loudest tones: "He is a murderer!" The vengeance of the Author of mankind justly follows him up who presumes to take the life of a human being-a being created in the image of the Divine Creator. After the waters of the flood had subsided, and the genera- tions of men were again starting out to run the course of destiny, God spake to Noah and his sons, saying: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require * * at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man." And when the people of his choice were upon the road to enter the rich inheritance which had been given to their fathers hundreds of years before, he caused them to halt, and amid the thunderings of Sinai he declared to them in language explicit, simple, and grand: "Thou shalt not kill." And when the great master, Jesus, came, he embraced all law, all gospel, and all ethical codes into one grand, glorious sentence which stands emblazoned upon the sacred page in letters of living light, and which shall shed forth rays of brightest effulgence all down the ages of the great eternity of God, when time shall have ceased, and only immortality exists: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."
On the leaves of a leather-bound memorandum-book, found in the heart of an Arizona desert, the following self-reproaches and self-accusations were written in pencil.
John Mathews
337
CRIMINAL HISTORY OF THE COUNTY.
Near by it the 'half-decomposed remains of a human being-a murderer-whose curse had truly been more than he could bear. How he suffered let his own simple story relate, as placed on record by the same hand that had sent a human soul unprepared into the presence of its Maker :---
" Blood on my hands! A blur of crimson before my eyes! The skies are brazen above me. The sun is sick with gore. The winds from the desert shriek at me- shriek and howl; and this one word only do they wail in my ears-this dreadful word, 'Murder!' I stop my ears with my hands; I cry aloud to drown their wailing voices; I cannot drown it; I cannot keep it out. It pierces me-pierces me through and through.
" What is it? I am bewildered. Why am I flying as one who seeks the ends of the earth? Yesterday earth had no horror for me. The winds were only winds- not demon voices. Ah, now I recollect. God pity me! Pity? I forgot! He can only curse me. Annihilate me, O God! Blot me out from the universe. That would be pity.
"It all comes back to me now. It is seared in my brain. The long search for the mine; the days in the desert, in the mountains; and then, behind that hill that overlooks the 'Valley of Death,' the vein of white, shining silver-wealth for a king. Then it swept over me-my years of poverty and toil, the cold sneer of the rich as they saw my penury-and here was wealth. I would have it all-all. Not even my partner should share the treasure. I was mad. He stooped to pick up the precious metal, and I struck him-him, the friend of my toils, and one who had never failed me-him, who had shared his food with me, who had slept upon the desert, in the mountains, under the same blanket; who had nursed me in sickness-I struck him to the earth. God, I was mad! Then I was alone with my wealth; with my wealth-ah! and the dead. I had not thought of the cold, still face that would lie there after the blow; of the sightless eyes staring to heaven. Then the madness left me. I threw myself beside him; prayed him to awake; felt for the heart-beat. Dead-dead. O my God! Dead! the friend of my toils. And I was a murderer- a murderer!"
Here some leaves were missing, and the next entries legibly represent him as a veritable vagabond :-
" Chill with guilt and fear, White from curse and scorn,
Out to the wilderness drear He stumbles through brier and thorn, With a smitten face to haunt him,
Beckoning toward the west, Touching him here and there With a bruise of a ghastly stain, Stinging his numb despair To the jagged quicks of pain."
"Wandering, still wandering. Earth has no rest for my feet; and I am so weary! When I step the earth spurns me, and the pitiless skies cry: 'On! On!' Starving! Penniless! and there, back there, is wealth untold. Yet I dare not seek it, dare not tell of it; for there, too, is that cold, still face with the sightless eyes gazing at the heav- ens, and the red blood crying, ever crying to God. I wander on, and I can feel upon my brow a brand like Cain. It is a brand of blood-hot, burning blood. I walk among men and I feel that they must see it-it is there. I pull my hat over my brow- closely; oh, so closely-down to my eyes, but they must see it. The brand of Cain!
338
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
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.