USA > California > Contra Costa County > History of Contra Costa County, California, including its geography, geology, topography, climatography and description; together with a record of the Mexican grants also, incidents of pioneer life; and biographical sketches of early and prominent settlers and representative men > Part 26
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
Green Valley
1872 .- It would appear that some change was contemplated in the boundary line between Alameda and Contra Costa counties by some indi- viduals unconnected with the latter, for we learn that the Board of Super-
229
Legislative History of Contra Costa County.
visors, on January 27, 1872, protested against any such alteration, prefer- ring that the dividing line should remain as laid down in the Act of March 25, 1853. On February 6th the town of Antioch was incorporated, the limits being fixed at one mile in width and about three in length. (For a plat of the town see page ninety-two, volume five, Records Board of Super- visors.)
1873 .- On May 7, 1873, directions were given for the consolidation of the offices of County Recorder and Auditor, and that of Sheriff and Tax- Collector.
1874 .- At an election held May 2, 1874, in Township Number Four, the electors voted against the issuing of liquor licenses by a majority of sixty- three votes, while, on June 6th, elections for a like purpose were held in Townships Numbers One, Two, Three and Five, with the following result :-
Township No. 1 .- For License 203 votes.
Against License 161 votes.
Majority For License 42 votes.
Township No. 2 .- For License. 77 votes.
Against License 143 votes.
Majority Against License 66 votes.
Township No. 3 .- For License . 152 votes.
Against License 84 votes.
Majority For License 68 votes.
Township No. 5 .- For License. 216 votes.
Against License 157 votes.
Majority For License 59 votes.
While on August 3d each School district was declared to be a Squirrel In- spection District.
1875 .- It was decided in this year to build offices for the County Clerk and Recorder apart from the Court-house building. On September 6th the construction was placed in the hands of P. H. Donovan and a committee appointed to select a site for the edifice, the choice falling on Lot Number Five, Block Two, in the town of Martinez.
1876 .- On February 9, 1876, measures were taken for the destruction of coyotes, and a bounty offered by the Board of Supervisors on production of the scalp and ears; and on May 22d the Grangers' Warehousing and Business Association received permission to construct a wharf on the fore- shores at Martinez.
230
History of Contra Costa County.
1877 .- The offices of County Recorder and Auditor were once more consolidated, by the Supervisors on May 7, 1877 ; while, on the following day directions were issued for co-operation with the Board of Supervisors of Alameda county, in a resurvey of the boundary line between that and Contra Costa. August 6th, the following resolutions, consequent on the death of Supervisor Tormey, were offered by Supervisor Loucks and adopted by the Board :-
"WHEREAS, Since the last previous meeting of this Board the call of death has removed from among us our late associate, Supervisor John Tor- mey, for a long term of years a member of this Board and one of our most active and enterprising citizens.
" Resolved, That in the death of John Tormey, Esq., this Board has lost an esteemed and valued member, the county one of its most prominent and active citizens, and his family a devoted father and husband.
" Resolved, That these resolutions be spread upon the minutes of the Board and a copy forwarded to the widow and children of the deceased, with a tender of the sincere sympathy of his late official associates in the affliction of their bereavement."
The last item of interest in the year 1877 was the approval of a map of the survey of the county line between Contra Costa and Alameda.
1878 .- The general reader will doubtless agree with us that the politi- cal phases of the county were without especial interest, except in a general way, until the question of a new organic law for the State began to be agitated. That the old Constitution was defective in many respects was granted by all, and some favored a new instrument, while others thought that the old one could be so amended as to cover the ground and save much expense. That they were right on the last proposition is doubtless true, but as to whether or not the former was feasible was a moot-point. The question was submitted to the people from time to time, but no definite result was obtained until the general election of 1877, at which time a large majority was given in favor of calling a Convention for the purpose of framing a new instrument.
It should be mentioned here that the citizens of Contra Costa county did not accord with the feelings of the majority of the State, as the following vote will explain :
For Constitutional Convention 782 votes.
Against Constitutional Convention 903 votes.
Majority against Constitutional Convention 121 votes.
During the next session of the Legislature a bill was framned and passed providing for the election of delegates to this Convention, which was approved March 30, 1878. Thirty-two delegates were to be elected from the State at large, not more than eight of whom should reside in any one
231
Legislative History of Contra Costa County.
Congressional District. In accordance with a proclamation issued by the Governor an election for the purpose of choosing delegates was held June 19, 1878, when the total vote in Contra Costa county was one thousand one hundred and thirty-nine, Thomas H. Estey receiving seven hundred and sixty votes as Joint Delegate for Marin and Contra Costa counties, and Hiram Mills four hundred and two votes as the Delegate from Contra Costa alone. The delegates convened at Sacramento City September 28, 1878, and continued in session one hundred and seventy-five days. When their labors had been completed, the new instrument was submitted to the people for their rejection or approval, and the day set for the vote was May 7, 1879. There was a very strong, and in many instances a bitter fight made against its passage, while its advocates were as energetic in their efforts to secure its adoption. The vote in Contra Costa county was :
For the New Constitution 882 votes.
Against the New Constitution 963 votes.
Majority against New Constitution. 81 votes.
It will thus be seen that Contra Costa was decidedly averse to a change in the Constitution adopted in Monterey in 1849.
The last item to be recorded in this year is the establishment of a cala- boose at Walnut Creek and another at Nortonville, money having been granted by the Board of Supervisors for that purpose.
1879 .- May 5th we find the Board directing the construction of a cala- boose at Concord; while, at the general election held September 7th the opinions of the citizens of Contra Costa are thus decidedly expressed in the matter of Chinese immigration !
For Chinese Immigration 16 votes.
Against Chinese Immigration 2039 votes.
Majority against Chinese Immigration 2,023 votes.
September 16th the Sheriff was directed to cause prisoners to labor on public works.
1880 .- Early in this year several franchises were granted for the erection of wharves at Port Costa, a little hamlet fast springing into notoriety as a shipping point, and made famous as the spot where the mammoth steamer Solano lands the western bound trains from the Atlantic. May 3d a Board of Education, consisting of A. Thurber of Pacheco, Alfred Dixon of San Pablo, Albert J. Young of Danville, and A. M. Phalin of Nortonville, were appointed by the Supervisors ; and on the following day, on motion of Super- visor P. Tormey, it was ordered that the bodies of all deceased persons here- after interred in cemeteries in Contra Costa county should be buried in graves dug at least five feet in depth. May 5th a calaboose was granted for the town of Martinez. On the 19th an official map, nine by five feet in
232
History of Contra Costa County.
dimensions, was directed to be made by Surveyor McMahon ; while, according to a minute of the same date, we find that the Northern Railroad Company had over twenty-three, and the San Pablo and Tulare Railroad Company more than thirty-four miles in length in the county, the former being valued at thirteen thousand and sixty, and the latter at eleven thousand two hundred dollars per mile. In this year, too, the County Infirmary was built and the Poor Farm laid out. On July 7th an official seal for the Board was ordered, the design being " a sheaf of grain, horn of plenty, and grapes and melons, surrounded by the words 'Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California.'" The public debt of the county, amounting to ninety- four thousand one hundred dollars, was funded in this year, bonds bearing interest at six per cent. per annum, and payable semi-annually, being directed to be issued on August 4th. On the same date the salaries of the county officers were fixed, and all fees and perquisites received directed to be paid into the Treasury. On October 4th another debt of thirty-eight thousand dollars was directed to be funded, and bonds bearing interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum ordered to be issued.
1881 .- On February 7, 1881, Supervisor Renwick, of District No. 2, protested against Supervisor elect Sherburne occupying his seat at the Board, on the plea that the Legislature of the State made no provision for the election of county officers, or members of the Board of Supervisors for the years 1880-1881. The Board on the same date authorized the erection of a calaboose at San Pablo; and on the 3d August granted permission to the Contra Costa Telephone Company to erect posts and wire along the public highways leading from Martinez to Danville and the Colton farm, passing through Pacheco and Walnut Creek. The last item to be recorded is the appointment by the Supervisors on November 23d, of Miss C. K. Witten- myer to a place on the Board of Education of Contra Costa county in the place of Alfred Dixon resigned.
The case of GILMAN versus CONTRA COSTA COUNTY .- In the foregoing pages mnuch has been said regarding this case, but as the entire circumstances connected with it may not be generally remembered we now place these before the reader, as given in a Statement of Facts, drawn up for the State Legislature by Judge Thomas A. Brown, and most courteously placed by that gentleman at our disposal :-
On October 28, 1852, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa county made a contract with Gilman to build a bridge across the San Antonio creek, in Oakland, the contract price being seven thousand four hundred dollars. It was stipulated in the contract that should the Treasurer refuse. to pay any warrant or order drawn in favor of Gilman, the Treasurer hav- ing in his hands any money belonging to said county, they agreed to pay Gilman a penalty of five per cent. per month on the amount, to be deemed
1
233
Legislative History of Contra Costa County.
an interest. On March 8, 1853, the Board of Supervisors met, and accepted the bridge, and made an order directing the County Auditor to draw a warrant upon the County Treasurer, in favor of Gilman, for seven thousand six hundred and sixty-two dollars and fifty cents, being the contract price of the bridge, together with interest thereon at five per cent. per month from the time the bridge had been completed up to the time the order was made. A warrant was drawn (number two hundred and sixteen), by the Auditor, in favor of Gilman, and delivered to him, March 8, 1853, for seven thousand six hundred and sixty-two dollars and fifty cents. The warrant was accepted by Gilman, and on the same day was presented by him to the County Treasurer, and the Treasurer made the following endorsement on the warrant : " Not paid for want of funds ; March eighth, eighteen hun- dred and fifty-three ; D. Hunsaker, Treasurer ; by A. M. Holliday, Deputy." Gilman retained the warrant. It does not appear that Gilman presented his warrant to the Treasurer for payment again. On November 15, 1854, Gilman commenced an action against the County of Contra Costa, to re- cover the contract price of the bridge, together with five per cent. per month interest from and after March 8, 1853. The cause was tried in Solano county, and judgment was rendered in favor of the county. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court ; the judgment of the District Court was re- versed, and a new trial ordered. The cause was again tried in the District Court on January 30, 1856, and judgment was rendered against the county for twenty thousand four hundred aud twenty-seven dollars, being the amount of the original contract price of the bridge, with five per cent. in- terest thereon from March 8, 1853, to the date of the judgment, and the said judgment to bear interest at five per cent. per month. On February 14, 1855, an Act was passed funding all the indebtedness of Contra Costa county, which accrued prior to April 1, 1855; and the thirteenth section of the Act provided that it should not be lawful for the County Treasurer to pay or liquidate any of the indebtedness of said county of Contra Costa which accrued prior to February 1, 1855, in any other manner than in such Funding Act provided (Statutes 1855, page 12). Gil- man did not present his claim to be funded. That on January 10, 1857, Gilman caused execution to be issued on the judgment in his favor, recov- ered on January 30, 1856, for twenty thousand four hundred and twenty- seven dollars. The execution was levied on all the moneys in the County Treasury belonging to all Funds. This levy was made January 19, 1857. . On February 25, 1857, the Sheriff, under the direction of Gilman, levied on the Court House, and on March 5, 1857, again levied on the funds in the County Treasury. In March, 1857, the county moved the District Court to quash the execution and the several levies. The District Court denied the motion. The cause was appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court reversed the order of the District Court, and ordered the executions
234
History of Contra Costa County.
should be quashed and the levy vacated, the Court holding that the county buildings were exempt from seizure and forced sale on execution ; and also held that the levy upon the revenues, in the hands of the Treas- urer, was illegal and void ; that the revenues were authorized by law, and appropriated to distinct purposes, and were not the subject of seizure upon execution (8 Cal. Rep. page 58).
On July 9, 1857, Gilman caused another execution to be issued on said judgment, and levied on private property, being an undivided eighth of the San Pablo Rancho. The property was advertised for sale, and the owner, Joseph Emeric, obtained an injunction from the District Court of the Sev- enth District, enjoining the sale. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court ; that Court decided (10 Cal., p. 404) that the private property of an inhabitant of a county is not liable to seizure and sale on execution for the satisfaction of a judgment recovered against the county, and that no execution can issue upon a judgment rendered against the county. Gilman again caused an execution to be issued on his judgment against the county, on April 1, 1858, and levied the same on the funds in the County Treasury. A motion was made to set aside the execution and quash the levy ; the District Court granted the motion and Gilman appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the District Court (10 Cal. Rep. p. 508.) This left Gilman without any remedy whatever to col- lect his debt, and the county without any power or authority whatever to pay. The Supreme Court having decided, in the case of Hunsaker vs. Bor- den (5 Cal. Rep., p. 288), that the county of Contra Costa had no power to pay any of the indebtedness which existed against that county prior to February 1, 1855, in any other manner than as prescribed in the Act to fund the indebtedness of said county, passed February 14, 1855, and that the payment in any other manner was unlawful. Gilman's debt having been contracted prior to February 1, 1855, and he having failed and neglected to fund his debt, he was without remedy. The rights of the parties continued thus until March 14, 1860, when an Act was passed entitled “ An Act pro- viding for the payment of a judgment in favor of Trusten C. Gilman, against the county of Contra Costa" (Stat. 1860, p. 94.) In the preamble of the Act it is recited :
" WHEREAS, The Supreme Court has affirmed a judgment entered in the .Seventh Judicial District Court, in favor of Trusten C. Gilman, against the county of Contra Costa, which judgment was entered in said District Court on the twenty-second of March, eighteen hundred and fifty six, for the sum of twenty thousand four hundred and twenty-seven dollars, and interest and costs."
The Act provides for levying and collecting a special tax of one per cent. on the taxable property in the county, to pay said judgment, together with
235
Legislative History of Contra Costa County.
interest thereon at ten per cent. per annum from its date. The fifth section of the Act provides that the Treasurer of the county of Contra Costa should pay the money collected by virtue of the Act from time to time, upon demand, to said Trusten C. Gilman, his executors, administrators, or assigns, and at the same time take a receipt therefor from his assigns; and have said judgment credited with said payment or payments by the proper party or parties entitled to receive the same; and the said party or parties entitled to receive from the Treasurer the payment of said judgment, shall, before any payments are made by the Treasurer on account of the same, deliver to the Treasurer the warrant here- tofore issued in favor of said Gilman, and known as Warrant Number Two hundred and sixteen, and the Treasurer shall cancel the same. Section eight of said Act. provides that said T. C. Gilman, or his assigns, should be allowed until the first Monday in August next hereafter to make known to the Board of Supervisors of said county his or their acceptance of said amount in full satisfaction and payment of all demands accruing at any time in his favor against the county of Contra Costa for building a bridge across the San Antonio creek ; provided, that if he fail to declare said acceptance to the Board of Supervisors on or before the first Monday in August next, then said special tax shall not be collected.
That on August 6, 1860, George F. Sharp, to whom Gilman had assigned said judgment, and who was the legal assignee of the judgment rendered in favor of Gilman against the county of Contra Costa on March 22, 1856, for twenty thousand four hundred and twenty-seven dollars, with interest and costs, came before the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa county and in writing accepted the provisions of the Act of March 14, 1860, in full satis- faction and payment of all demands accruing at any time in favor of said Gilman against the county of Contra Costa for building a bridge across the San Antonio Creek, and he also surrendered to the Treasurer of said county, as provided in said Act, the County Warrant number two hundred and sixteen, for seven thousand six hundred and sixty-two dollars and fifty cents, which was canceled, as provided in the fifth section of the Act. On the same day, August 6, 1860, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa county levied a tax of one per cent. on the taxable property of the county, as provided in said Act, for the payment of said claim. The payments made by the Treasurer to Sharp, as the assignee of said judgment and in satisfaction of said claim, amounted in the aggregate, on June 19, 1862, the time of the last payment, to thirty-one thousand six hundred and eleven dollars and twenty-one cents, that being the full sum due for principal and interest, as in said Act provided. And upon making the several payments the Treasurer took from said Sharp receipts as follows: "Office of the County Treasurer of Contra Costa county. Received from Hiram Fogg, County Treasurer of Contra Costa county, the sum of ten thousand dollars,
236
History of Contra Costa County.
lawful currency of the United States of America, in part payment and satis- faction of the judgment recovered by Trusten C. Gilman against the county of Contra Costa. The said sum is paid out of the Gilman Judgment Fund, which was levied and collected in pursuance of an act of the Legislature of the State of California, entitled an "Act providing for the payment of a judgment in favor of Trusten C. Gilman against the county of Contra Costa, approved March 14, 1860," and by order of the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa county, made on the sixth of August, eighteen hundred and sixty, a copy being annexed to this receipt, and the said sum is received in part satisfaction of said judgment, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of the Legislature, and I hereby authorize satisfaction of the amount receipted for to be entered." There were thirteen different pay- ments made, and thirteen receipts given by Sharp, as assignee of Gilman, to the Treasurer, of like tenor to the above. The debt was fully paid, as provided in said Act, on June 19, 1862.
That on March 15, 1860, prior to the passage of the Act of March 14th mentioned, George F. Sharp, as the assignee of Gilman, commenced an action in the District Court of Solano county to revive the judgment of March 22, 1856, in favor of Gilman and against the county, for twenty thousand four hundred and twenty-seven dollars, with five per cent. per month interest. Judgment was entered in said action in favor of Sharp, assignee of Gilman, by default, in the Clerk's office, on July 18, 1860, for eighty-five thousand and forty-two dollars and eighty cents, to be an interest at five per cent. per month. When this action was commenced a demurrer was filed, but after the Act of March 14, 1860, the officers of the county, believing that the Act of March 14th provided for a full settlement of all matters growing out of the Gilman bridge transaction, and intending also in good faith to pay the claim, as provided in that Act, and believing that Gilman and his assignees also intended to act in good faith in accepting the terms of said Act, the county paid no further attention to the last named suit; and after- wards, on July 18, 1860, Sharp applied to the Clerk of Solano county, who entered in a vacation judgment by default against the county for eighty-five thousand and forty-two dollars and eighty cents. No action was taken by Sharp on this last judgment until long after he had been fully paid, as stated, on and prior to June 19, 1862.
That on July 16, 1865, Sharp commenced another action to revive the last judgment of eighty-five thousand and forty-two dollars and eighty cents against the county. The action was commenced in the Fifteenth District Court in San Francisco City and county. The county defended the action on the ground that the debt had been fully paid, satisfied and discharged. The cause was tried, and judgment was ren- dered in the District Court in favor of the county. The Court decided that the county had fully paid and satisfied the said debt and the said
1 8 de votes
237
Legislative History of Contra Costa County.
judgment, and ordered and directed that Sharp should cancel and satisfy said judgment of record. Sharp appealed from said judgment to the Supreme Court. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the county was not, either legally or equitably, indebted upon the demand in any sum whatever, but on the contrary, that the county had, under the Act of March 14, 1860, fully paid and discharged the said claim. The case is entitled Sharp vs. Contra Costa County, and is reported in 34 Cal. Reports, p. 284.
Gilman's claim is now (1872) made to the Legislature for the same identical claim for building the bridge across the San Antonio creek, and in relation to which the litigation named was had, and the same for which payment was provided in the Act of March 14, 1860, and is the same which was fully paid and satisfied under said Act. His county warrant has been surrendered and canceled ; his judgment has been paid, satisfied, and dis- charged, and satisfaction entered of record; he now makes a claim against the county of over six hundred and seventy-six thousand and ninety dol- lars upon this claim. It is submitted that the county has not only paid the claim, but has actually paid more than double what was due to him accord- ing to law. When Gilman received his warrant for seven thousand four hundred dollars on March 8, 1853, and presented the same to the Treasurer, the Treasurer made the indorsement thereon required by law. From that time the debt drew ten per cent. per annum, interest, and no more. Sec- tion ten of the Act concerning County Treasurers, passed March 27, 1850, (Statutes, 1850, p. 115), provides when any warrant shall be presented to the County Treasurer for payment, and the same is not paid for the want of funds, the Treasurer shall indorse thereon "Not paid for want of funds," annexing the date of presentation, and sign his name thereto; and from that time till redeemed, said order or warrant shall bear ten per cent. per annum. That section of the statute has been in force ever since it was passed in 1850. When Gilman accepted his warrant, and presented it to the Treasurer and procured it to be indorsed by him, and had received it back into his possession, he knew or was bound to know what the law was ; that from that time no officer was authorized by law to pay any greater rate of interest on that debt than ten per cent. per annum. The interest on the debt up to June 19, 1862-the time when the full amount was paid under the Act of 1860-being nine years and three and one-third months, would have been six thousand eight hundred and sixty-five dollars, which, added to the principal, seven thousand four hundred dollars, amounted to fourteen thousand two hundred and sixty-five dollars. The county actu- ally paid thirty-one thousand six hundred and eleven dollars and twenty- one cents, being seventeen thousand three hundred and forty-six dollars and twenty-one cents more than was due on the warrant, according to the law concerning indebtedness of counties.
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.