USA > California > Fresno County > History of Fresno County, California, with biographical sketches of the leading men and women of the county who have been identified with its growth and development from the early days to the present, Volume I > Part 60
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 | Part 145 | Part 146 | Part 147 | Part 148 | Part 149 | Part 150 | Part 151 | Part 152 | Part 153 | Part 154 | Part 155 | Part 156 | Part 157 | Part 158 | Part 159
The reason for not holding the meeting became apparent at the proceed- ings on the day after. Evidently the program had not been completed the day before and had not been rehearsed. It was an excited meeting this assem- blage of the full commission with enough legal talent on hand to back the hope of the chairman that it would put them right in the proceedings to fol- low. The returns of the Coalinga precinct were produced for canvass. The precinct register index was missing but as it did not show who had voted it was inconsequential. Its absence was seized upon by the chairman, De Long, to raise the point whether it was not for the commission to question anything done at the election outside of and not according to law, in other words to go behind the returns.
This was the cue for the Visalia attorney, who launched forth in an argu- ment that the election was not conducted according to law and that it was for the commissioners to determine whether the returns had come to them in a manner provided by law, maintaining also that it had appeared that people had voted at the election that were not qualified to do so because they were not on the great register.
Reply was of course made by the attorneys representing the anti-division- ists and the question was squarely presented whether the duties of the com- mission were not purely ministerial in the canvassing of the votes cast and certifying the result, and not judicial as maintained by the divisionists in going behind the face of the returns and passing on whether ballots are legal or illegal for any reason.
The law giver for the divisionists went further to declare that there is no legal procedure to contest a special election such as this, and maintained that if any illegal votes had been cast it was the duty of the commission to declare the election null and void.
Commissioner Guiberson in Anglo-Saxon more forcible than elegant or parliamentary asked how the board was to determine this question?
Without attempting to answer this problem, Chairman De Long an- nounced flat-footedly for an inquiry into the legality of the votes. The lawyers argued and argued but all in vain. A program had been resolved upon and it was the intention to carry that program over rough shod, if need be. Gui- berson forced on the issue to proceed with the canvass. The vote was a tie, he and Herbert voting for the motion and De Long casting the deciding vote, making it; Ayes two; noes 3. Effort followed to take up the returns of an- other precinct but it proved a failure, for at this point advance prepared reso- lutions were introduced and of course adopted by a vote of three to two. If evidence were, needed to prove the existence of a pre-arranged program, the resolutions furnished it.
After this there was nothing more to do before the commission. The question was asked of the chairman: "Would this action have taken place
405
HISTORY OF FRESNO COUNTY
had the election gone the other way?" The reply: "It would in my case, so far as I am concerned," provoked incredulous smiles.
After long recitals, the resolutions declared that the election held on the 10th of December "was not in truth, or in fact, or in contemplation of law, such an election as provided for in said act;" all proceedings taken in relation to holding the election were voided and set aside and another election was ordered for January 14, 1908, and the secretary was ordered to demand of the county clerk a certificate showing the names of all qualified electors resident in the district prior to three months before the new date of election and registered.
It was a remarkable piece of work that of those three commissioners. As H. H. Welsh remarked: "This thing has positively reached the degree of indecency." As monstrous a lie as could be manufactured out of whole cloth was the declaration in the program resolutions that County Clerk W. O. Miles had refused "to furnish the board of commissioners any certificate under seal showing the additional names of the voters on the great register of the county of Fresno registered as residing in said territory described in said act, since the last register." He did furnish a copy of the great register and of all additional certified to names of voters on the register within forty days of the election and of those who had transferred within twenty-five days of the election. All who attempted to register after the forty or twenty-five days were not entitled to vote, and these he did not register nor certify to.
The county grand jury took up on December 20, 1907, the matter of the alleged conspiracy in relation to the division election and as the first phase the refusal of the three commissioners to perform a specific duty in the can- vass of the returns, in pursuance of a conspiracy. It was a coincidence that Commissioner Herbert was a member of the grand jury and he was excused from participation in the inquiry on the first phase, but called for the second phase as regards the fraud in voting and registration. The plea for the refusal to canvass the vote was that this action was based on the advice of the Visalia attorney. The reason given for the non-holding of the called meeting of the commission for the canvassing of the returns was that it was not required to be held until six days after the receipt of the votes. That Monday was in fact the sixth day after the election and all returns had been received the day after the election.
There was a circumstance in this connection. It may have been that this Monday called meeting of the commission was not held because not until night of that day was the town council of Hanford to award to F. S. Granger franchise for an interurban road between Hanford and Fresno. Perhaps it was desired to have this matter settled before taking action to set aside the election and calling for another so that the matter of the franchise grant could be used as an argument for winning over votes at the second election. As a matter of fact this interurban road failed to materialize because its bonds could never find sale.
Confusion was worse confounded January 8, 1908, when there was a call out for the second election by the commission for the 14th but on which 8th day the grand jury returned indictments against Commissioners David M. De Long, Scott Blair and George Robinson for a felony under Section 41 of crimes against the elective franchise in the refusal and neglect to canvass the December election vote. The indictments were not expected so soon after the mandamus hearing at Sacramento the Monday before on the order to show cause before the district appellate court why they had not canvassed the vote. The petition was by John Cerini, an elector of the Liberty precinct, who had also petitioned in the Superior court of Fresno County to enjoin the holding of the January 14th election held up by order of Judge H. Z. Austin. The foreman of the grand jury was T. C. White and the indictments were returned by fifteen subscribing grand jurors out of nineteen.
406
HISTORY OF FRESNO COUNTY
There was a reason for advancing the finding of the indictments. The electors of Laton had voted strongly against division, in fact their vote had been a deciding factor, the divisionists having their support in the out-of- town voters in the Laguna country. To change the possible vote at the 14th of January election the commission removed the polling place from Laton, where it had been for years, to the district school house seven miles from town. The purpose of this change could have been to reduce the Laton vote against division because of inability to attend at the polling place, and thus increase the vote for division in the southern and western part of the county in the district before offset by the town people. Undeterred by indictment, mandamus and injunction, but determined to carry out the program to void the result of the December election, the personnel of the precinct boards of election in the affected district had also been changed for the election on the 14th, a new set of officials was practically named and anti-divisionists declared that the precincts were placed in control of sympathizers with Kings and partisans of division. The time for forbearance and temporizing had passed and the contempt of the commissioners was met by the indictments. Mean- while no canvass of the vote and no official declaration of the result.
January 10th the appellate court issued its writ ordering the commis- sioners to canvass the result of the special election in December, the man- damus case having been referred to it for hearing and decision by the supreme court. The decision was an unanimous one and for the time killed the divi- sion movement. The pleaded refusal to canvass was on the ground that 309 voters registered within the forty days preceding the election were denied ballots by order of the county clerk.
The superior court injunction case as regards the called for second election on the 14th was independent of the mandamus case. It was held in abeyance until after the attitude of the refractory trio. was further made manifest after receipt of the mandamus order. The injunction forbade making any preparation for this election. The commission had no paraphernalia for it save the sealed and bank-vaulted election papers of December and if the returns were canvassed and the result against division declared manifestly there would be no need for another election under the act. The county clerk refused to issue new papers for an election in January. The question of illegal votes was not a matter for the commissioners as it had always been contended and as it was held. Theirs was to canvass the vote and declare the result. And if any one desired to contest the election, how was he to institute that contest when no official declaration of the December vote had ever been made? Moreover, had it come to the question of that fraud, it would probably have been found where the initiative was and there would have been no likelihood of a contest by the divisionists.
The mandamus decision was to order the refractory ones to do under the law the thing that they had been asked to do but which they stubbornly refused to do and for which they were indicted. Their defense was that they had acted as they did on the advice of a Visalia attorney. Lawyers will tell you that it is no defense in law that a client has acted on the bad or fool advice of a lawyer. The commissioners abided by the mandamus order and canvassed the December vote. They had been hoisted by their own pe- tard. They had chosen to accept the sole and unsupported advice of this Visalian as against that of other lawyers and that of the county's law giver in the deputy district attorney in opposition to the Visalian but conformably with the court ruling in the mandamus case.
But there was discovered another strong piece of evidence as showing intent. It was brought to the attention of the grand jury, and as report had it, was a strong determining factor resulting in the presentation of the indictments. It was in effect that after the day of the December election and after defeat of division was known from the unofficial returns, and before the day for the canvass at Coalinga, the commissioners under indictment
407
HISTORY OF FRESNO COUNTY
afterward communicated by telephone with county division headquarters at Hanford and all or some attended a meeting of the division campaigners in that town. The communications that passed and the instructions from the meeting were in effect of the character of the acts done in the refusal to canvass the returns, and brought about the complications that actually arose.
The four indictments against the three refractories and their ill advising Visalia attorney were stricken from the court files by a decision on January 23, 1908, by Judge J. A. Melvin of Alameda County, who had been called into the case and whose technical decision was that the substantial rights of the defendants had been violated in that G. P. Beveridge and William For- syth as grand jurors had voted to find indictments when they had not been present at the grand jury meetings when testimony was given on the 20th and 21st of December and that what evidence they were in possession of was not legal but hearsay evidence, having been the stenographic report of the testimony given on the two days. Judge Melvin declared that he was loath to grant the motion on a technicality, but said that the people's rights would not be sacrificed by a granting of the motion for he instructed the district attorney to resubmit the case to another grand jury. The attention of the court was directed to the fact that even with the two grand jurors eliminated, there had still been a quorum of twelve to find the indictments. The answer was that the duties of a grand juror are not alone to vote but to hear and take the best evidence and to discuss it and not having heard all the testimony presented they were disqualified, biased or prejudiced.
The two jurors had testified that they were not prejudiced. In behalf of Beveridge, it was admitted that he had contributed $200 to the Fresno anti-division campaign fund. Three interesting facts were brought out in a reading of the testimony given by Commissioner Guiberson before the grand jury and they were:
(1) That it was understood at the meeting of the commissioners for the canvass of the votes that the Visalia attorney came with a prepared reso- lution to declare the election void and of no effect, with only the date line blank.
(2) That Guiberson could not comprehend that this Visalian's advice could be right because he quoted no law and had he said that black was white the board would also so have declared in following any advice from him.
(3) If any lawyer in Fresno had advised contrarily, the board would not- withstanding have acted upon the .Visalia advice.
The conspiracy matter was never submitted to another grand jury. Divi- sion was effectually squelched. Kings County's land grab took another form and on March 10, 1908, Senators Cartwright of Fresno and Miller of Tulare arrived at a compromise and the Webber bill was passed after two roll calls on defeated amendments and with no reasons given for the passage of the measure. The bill established a new south boundary for Fresno County, the original bill asking for 185 square miles and the last amendment calling for 120. Miller had tied up a bunch of votes with a fairly close prospect on the final result; Cartwright recognized that he had been beaten and Miller was not certain how long he could hold his block intact. In the contest on the floor, Cartwright first proposed the river as a boundary giving Kings thirty-eight and Fresno in return thirteen square miles. This was defeated by a vote of seven to twenty-six. Then came his proposal to give Kings the district in Fresno south of the river ; defeated by a viva voce vote. Then was made the offer to give the south of the river land and that about Heinlein understood to have a pro-Kings County population. This was defeated fifteen to eighteen.
In the debate on the floor on the third reading of the bill with demand of roll call, much was told of the history of the county boundary question in the effort of Kings to secure more taxable property, showing how the cam-
408
HISTORY OF FRESNO COUNTY
paign was started in Hanford to arouse discontent, carried on for two years to set up a revolt against Fresno and ending in a vote and defeat of the propo- sition. Cartwright and Miller had made agreement against any lobbying on the bill in the hope of a vote on its merits. On the showing made at the election, it was claimed that the people north of the river were averse to going into Kings but those south of it desired a change.
Cartwright presented protest from about seventy-five percent. of voters in districts north of the river against any change; showed that ninety percent. of the people of Laton did not want to go into the smaller county and nearly all the families in Riverbend desired to be in Fresno. Miller's reply was almost wholly an attack on Assemblyman A. M. Drew of Fresno for instituting the injunction suit of two years before and lost to prevent the election, denouncing the act as a breach of faith in a matter submitted by the legislature. Interviews with senators on the Webber bill were ex- cused on the plea that two years before Cartwright had beaten Miller in pledging senators on the boundary question. The further plea was that as above sixty per cent. in the territory asked by Kings so voted the change should affect the land on both sides of the river. Kings could not afford to accept the river as a boundary as it would have to spend too much money in bridges without recompense in taxable property.
Objection being made to the reading of more telegrams from Fresno against a change in boundary, Cartwright had his last fling in the arguments on the amendments to show up Charles King for his welching after making a $1,500 wager on division and losing. Cartwright admitted that this had nothing to do with the bill but he wanted to show the senate what kind of a man was behind the bill.
As passed, the bill gave Kings about half the valuable territory that it had asked for, leaving to Fresno the town of Laton and placing the line about six miles south of the fourth parallel line south which was the line that Kings desired. Fresno saved three-fourths of those that desired to re- main with Fresno and lost nine-tenths of those that wanted to go to Kings.
And thus ended the chapter on the Kings County grab, denominating the attempted act of brigandage by the mildest of terms.
OFFICIAL DIRECTORY
(Fresno, forty-first county of fifty-eight in the order of formation, was created under the act of April 19, 1856. The seventh legislative session at Sacramento adjourned two days after the date of the county creative act.)
STATE SENATORS
1857-61, S. A. Merritt. 1862-63, Thomas Baker. 1863-68, J. W. Freeman. 1869-72, Thomas Fowler. 1873-76, Tipton Lindsey. 1877-78, Thomas Fowler. 1879-82, Dr. Chester Rowell. 1883-86, Patrick Reddy. 1887-94, George G. Goucher. 1895-98, Dr. A. J. Pedlar. 1899-1906, Dr. Chester Rowell. 1907-14. George W. Cartwright. 1915, W. F. Chandler. 1919, M. B. Harris.
ASSEMBLYMEN
1857, Orson K. Smith. 1858, A. H. Mitchell. 1859, James M. Roan. 1860, T. M. Heston. 1861, Orson K. Smith. 1862, James Smith. 1863-64, James N. Walker. 1865-68. R. P. Mace. 1869, P. C. Appling. 1871, J. N. Walker. 1873, J. W. Ferguson. 1875, J. D. Collins. 1877, R. P. Mace. 1879, C. G. Sayle. 1881, E. J. Griffith. 1883, J. F. Wharton. 1885, A. M. Clark. 1887, J. P. Vincent. 1889, E. H. Tucker. 1891-94, G. W. Mordecai and 1893-94. H. J. T. Jacobsen. 1895, N. L. F. Bachman and W. F. Rowell. 1897, G. W. Cartwright and L. W. Moultrie. 1899, John Fairweather and J. M. Griffin. 1901. \V. F. Chandler and Marvin G. Simpson. 1903, A. M. Drew and J. O. Traber. 1905-08. W. F. Chandler and A. M. Drew. 1909. W. R. Odom and A. M. Drew. 1911, W. F. Chandler, W. A. Sutherland. 1913, Chandler, Suther- land and L. B. Cary. 1915, L. D. Scott, Henry Hawson and Roy C. Traber. 1917, A. A. Carlson, Henry Hawson and Melvin Pettit. 1919, S. L. Strother, B. D. McKean and Melvin Pettit.
DISTRICT JUDGES
Fresno County was in the thirteenth judicial district until the system was changed with the constitution adopted in 1879.
1856, Ethelbert Burke. 1864, J. M. Bondurant. 1865, Alexander Deering. 1868, A. C. Bradford. 1873, Alexander Deering. 1875, J. B. Campbell and the last on the district court bench.
COUNTY JUDGES
1856, Charles A. Hart. 1860, James Sayles, Jr. 1864, E. C. Winchell. 1867, Gillum Baley and the last under the judicial system of the old consti- tittion.
SUPERIOR COURT
1880, S. A. Holmes. 1884, J. B. Campbell. 1887, M. K. Harris (appointed to the newly created Department two of the court and in November 1888 elected to a full term). 1890, S. A. Holmes. 1894, J. R. Webb previously ap- pointed to the additional Department three, and E. W. Risley elected to Department two. 1895, Stanton L. Carter appointed, vice Holmes deceased. 1896, George E. Church elected to fill out that unexpired term. 1900, H. Z.
410
HISTORY OF FRESNO COUNTY
Austin and George E. Church, both on the bench in Departments one and two and reelected thereafter. 1918, D. A. Cashin appointed by the governor to the Third Department judgeship created at the legislative session before. 1919, H. Z. Austin, reelected; D. A. Cashin, elected, Departments one and three; M. F. McCormick, elected, Department two.
COUNTY SUPERVISORS
(There has never been published a complete, correct and reliable county official roster. The early records are incomplete and perplexing. The pro- vision of filing a bond as an official qualification was often neglected, and by the early supervisors apparently ignored-at any rate none are of record. Not until after 1862 was there record of election returns or of official declara- tions of results. The first name for every yearly grouping that follows is that of the board chairman.)
1856-John R. Hughes, John A. Patterson, John L. Hunt.
1857-J. R. Hughes, James E. Williams, Clark Hoxie.
1858-Clark Hoxie, James Smith, James W. Rankin.
1859-H. E. Howard, C. D. Simpson, A. C. Bullock.
1860-J. B. Royal, L. J. Carmack, Justin Esrey.
1861-G. B. Abel, J. B. Royal, L. J. Carmack.
1862-W. H. Parker, John L. Hunt, Reuben Reynolds.
1863-John L. Hunt, James Blackburn, J. G. Simpson.
1864-65-John L. Hunt, J. G. Simpson, W. W. Hill.
1866-J. L. Hunt. J. G. Simpson, S. S. Hyde.
1867-J. G. Simpson, S. S. Hyde, H. C. Daulton.
1868-S. S. Hyde, J. G. Simpson, H. C. Daulton.
1869-H. C. Daulton, J. G. Simpson, John Barton.
1870-J. G. Simpson, John Barton, H. C. Daulton. 1871-John Barton, H. C. Daulton, Michael Donahoo.
1872-H. C. Daulton, Thomas F. Witherspoon, J. N. Musick.
1873-T. F. Witherspoon, H. C. Daulton, J. N. Musick.
1874-H. C. Daulton, Austin Phillips, J. N. Musick.
1875-H. C. Daulton, J. N. Musick, A. Phillips.
1876-J. N. Musick, A. Phillips, I. N. Ward 1877-Austin Phillips, J. J. Hensley, T. P. Nelson.
1878-T. P. Nelson, J. J. Hensley, Thomas Waggener.
1879-T. P. Nelson, Thos. Waggener, T. J. Dunlap.
1880-Thos. Waggener, T. P. Nelson, T. J. Dunlap.
1881-82-T. J. Dunlap, T. P. Nelson, Austin Phillips.
1883-84-H. C. Daulton, W. L. L. Witt, A. T. Covell, Thomas Wag- gener, D. C. Dunagan.
1885-86-A. T. Covell, J. J. Dickinson, Stephen Hamilton, John Yeargin, D. C. Dunagan.
1887-A. T. Covell, W. M. Raynor, S. Hamilton, C. L. Walter, D. C. Dunagan.
1888-S. Hamilton, W. M. Raynor, T. C. White, C. L. Walter, D. C. Dunagan.
1889-90-D. C. Dunagan, W. M. Raynor, T. F. Letcher, T. C. White, C. L. Walter, William Hanke (elected June 1890 on the death of Dunagan). 1891-92-T. C. White, J. Myer, T. F. Letcher, R. B. Butler, W. Hanke. 1893-T. F. Letcher, R. B. Butler, J. Myer, F. P. Wickersham, J. H. Sayre.
1894-T. F. Letcher, R. B. Butler, F. P. Wickersham, T. R. Foster, J. H. Sayre. 1895-96-F. P. Wickersham, T. F. Letcher, J. H. Sayre, M. S. Rose, C. W. Garrett.
411
HISTORY OF FRESNO COUNTY
1897-98-J. H. Sayre, C. W. Garrett, W. P. Manley, A. E. Smith, James A. Ward (appointed by Governor Budd April 1907 upon the accidental death of Smith), M. S. Rose.
1899-00-J. H. Sayre, H. E. Burleigh, W. P. Manley, Phil Scott, Thomas Martin
1901-04-Phil Scott, H. E. Burleigh, E. J. Bullard, Thomas Martin, W.
D. Mitchell.
W. D. Mitchell. 1905-06-Thomas Martin, H. E. Burleigh, G. W. Beall, J. B. Johnson,
1907-08-G. W. Beall, Thomas Martin, Chris Jorgensen, J. B. Johnson, W. D. Mitchell.
1909-10-Thomas Martin, C. Jorgensen, M. D. Huffman, J. B. Johnson, WV. D. Mitchell.
1911-12-Chris Jorgensen, M. D. Huffman, J. B. Johnson, Thomas Mar- tin, W. D. Mitchell.
1913-14-Chris Jorgensen, M. D. Huffman, J. B. Johnson, Thomas Mar-
tin, W. A. Collins. 1915-16-Chris Jorgensen, M. D. Huffman, J. B. Johnson, Charles L. Wells, W. A. Collins.
1917-Chris Jorgensen, Robert Lochead, .J. B. Johnson, C. L. Wells, W. A. Collins.
SHERIFFS
(Up to 1889 the sheriff was also tax collector.)
1856-57-W. C. Bradley. 1857-George S. Harden (appointed on resig- nation of Bradley). 1858-W. Y. Scott. 1859-J. S. Ashman. 1867-J. N. Walker. 1871-J. S. Ashman. 1873-Leroy Dennis. 1874-J. S. Ashman on the death of Dennis. 1877-E. Hall. 1882-M. J. Donahoo (the first Re- publican elected in the county as a public official). 1884-O. J. Meade. 1890 -J. M. Hensley. 1892-Jay Scott. 1898-J. D. Collins. 1906-R. D. Chitten- den. 1910-Walter S. McSwain. 1915-H. Thorwaldsen appointed on the death of McSwain. 1919-W. F. Jones.
TAX COLLECTORS
1889-Achilles D. Ewing. 1890-W. C. Guard. 1894-N. W. Moodey. 1898-J. B. Hancock. 1906-A. B. Smith. 1914-R. W. Baker; reelected in 1919.
COUNTY CLERKS
(This office combined up to 1877 the auditorship and up to 1885 also the recordership.)
1856-James Sayles, Jr. 1859-D. J. Johnson. 1862-William Faymon- ville. 1867-A. G. Anderson. 1869-H. St. J. Dixon. 1873-A. M. Clark. 1886-A. C. Williams. 1892-W. A. Shepherd. 1894-T. G. Hart. 1898-G. W. Cartwright. 1902-W. O. Miles. 1910-David M. Barnwell; reelected in 1919.
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.