USA > California > Marin County > History of Marin County, California also an historical sketch of the state of California > Part 25
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
The Legislature first sat at Vallejo on January 5, 1852, but there was wanting the attraction of society which would appear to be necessary to the seat of every central government. With these Sacramento abounded, from her proximity to the mines. The Assembly therefore, with a unanimity bordering on the marvelous, passed a bill to remove the session to that city, ball tickets and theater tickets being tendered to. the members in reckless profusion. The bill was transferred to the Senate and bitterly fought by the Hons. Paul K. Hubbs and Phil. A. Roach. The removal was rejected by one . vote. This was on a Saturday, but never was the proverb of we "know not what the morrow may bring forth," more fully brought to bear upon any
1
216
HISTORY OF MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
consideration. Senator Anderson it is said passed a sleepless night, through the presence of unpleasant insects in his couch; on the Monday morning he moved a reconsideration of the bill; the alarm was sounded on every hand, and at 2 P. M. on January 12, 1852, the Government and Legislature were finding its way to Sacramento by way of the Carquinez Straits. On March 7, 1852, a devastating flood overwhelmed Sacramento, and where they had before feared contamination, they now feared drowning. The Legislature adjourned at Sacramento May 4, 1852, the next session to be held at Vallejo. On January 3, 1853, the peripatetic government met again at Vallejo, whither had been moved in May, the archives and State offices. Once more the spirit of jealousy was rampant; Sacramento could not with any grace ask for its removal back thither ; but she, working with Benicia, the capital was once more on wheels and literally carted off to the latter town for the remaining portion of the session, when a bill was passed to fix the capital of the State at Sacramento, and thereafter clinched by large appro- priations for building the present magnificent capitol there. The last sitting of the Legislature was held on February 4, 1853, when it was resolved to meet at Benicia on the 11th of the month, the vote then taken being as follows : Ayes-Messrs. Baird, Denver, Estill, Hager, Hubbs, Hudspeth, Keene, Lind, Lott, Lyons, Mckibben, Roach, Smith, Snyder, Sprague, Wade, Wombough-17. Nays-Crabb, Cofforth, Foster, Gruwell, Ralston, Walkup-6.
But to return to our particular subject. During the first session at San José, but little was done beyond dividing the State into counties, and organ- izing their governments. At this time, Robert Hopkins was elected District Judge and Assemblyman, J. E. Brackett, Major-General of the second divis- ion of militia. Mr. Hopkins, who with the Hon. George Pearce had been appointed a committee to visit the capital in order to prevent, if possible, the establishment of a boundary line which would include the Sonoma valley in Napa county, was a resident lawyer of Sonoma. On arrival at San Jose, the question of appointing a Judge for the Sonoma district was attracting attention, and the only candidate was W. R. Turner, who though a gentle- man of capabilities, did not reside there, and probably had never visited the spot. Pearce proposed to Hopkins to run for the office ; he allowed himself to be put in nomination, and he beat Turner, who knew not of opposition, just as he was putting forth his hand to seize the prize. The vote was unanimous for Hopkins, and Turner received some other district. Thus we see how narrow was the escape which Marin had at the outset of receiving a District Judge, who was utterly unknown to her residents. Pearce went to San José for one purpose and accomplished another, while Hopkins came back a full-fledged Judge of a most important district.
The State of California was admitted into the Union on September 9, 1850, and on January 6, 1851, the second Legislature met at San José.
217
POLITICAL HISTORY.
Martin E. Cook, at this session, represented the Eleventh Senatorial district, which was composed of the counties of Sonoma, Solano, Napa, Marin, Colusa, Yolo, and Trinity-in short all that territory west of the Sac- ramento river, while in the lower house, this county in conjunction with Napa, Sonoma and Solano, was represented by John A. Bradford and A. Stearns.
On September 3, 1851, the first gubernatorial election was held under the new order of things. In this contest, John Bigler, who received twenty-three thousand seven hundred and seventy-four votes in the State, against twenty- two thousand seven hundred and thirty-three, got by P. B. Redding, his Whig opponent, had the assistance of that new power which had com- menced to creep into the State, in the shape of the squatting element. He was democratic in his manners, being "hale-fellow" with all. Not so his . opponent, who was a gentleman of more genteel bearing than the kind- hearted, unambitious, landless Governor, who was always mindful of his friends. Bigler, in all his messages, urged economy, but found it difficult to prevent an office being made for a friend. Tuthill remarks: "It was his pet project to unite the Southern and Western men of his party, and let the free-soilers shift for themselves; but it is not in that direction that party cleavage runs. The Southerners scorned the alliance. They were 'high- toned,' and looked down upon a Missourian as little better than a man from Massachusetts. The Governor's project would not work. He carried water on both shoulders and spilt very little on either side."
Let us now return to the records of Marin county.
By an Act of the Legislature, passed February 18, 1850, the county under notice was directed to be attached to Sonoma for Judicial purposes. By the Act of March 11, 1851, she was, with Sonoma, Solano, Napa and Mendocino, organized into the Seventh Judicial District; on May 1st, of the same year, with the counties of Mendocino and Sonoma, Marin was established as the Nineteenth Senatorial District to elect one Senator jointly, Marin and Men- docino sending one member to the Assembly, while by the Act of May, 1853, these counties were reorganized into the Eleventh Senatorial District. The last-mentioned arrangement would appear to have remained in force until May 18, 1861, when the Tenth Senatorial District was formed out of Marin and Contra Costa counties, these having the power to elect one Senator and each of them one Member of Assembly, the former of whom was allotted as being of the first class in accordance with the Act of the Legislature dated April 27, 1863. Once more, March 16, 1874, the District was re-numbered to the Fifteenth, while on March 29, 1876, the " Act to create the Twenty- second Judicial District " was passed, it being composed of Marin, Sonoma and Mendocino counties. The appointee, until the next general election being Jackson Temple, a gentleman whose reputation as a jurist is second to none. Under this appointment Judge Temple served two years, and suc-
218
HISTORY OF MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
ceeded himself, having been elected at the regular judicial election, without opposition, for a full term of six years. He had served only two years of this term when the New Constitution was adopted. Under its provision the Courts were reorganized, the County and District Courts were abolished and Superior Courts created, and now the last Judge of the District Court, wherein was included this county, is Superior Judge of the adjoining one of Sonoma, an office to which he was elected without regard to party, by the largest majority of any candidate on the county ticket; thus we have traced the District Court from its incipience and the election of Robert Hopkins as Judge, to its abolition with Judge Jackson Temple on the Bench.
On July 22, 1850, the County Judge and Justices of the Peace for Marin met at San Rafael for the purpose of electing Associate Justices and organ- izing the Court of Sessions, the result of the meeting being that James A. Shorb, County Judge, James Black and George Milewater, Associate Justices, and William F. Mercer were called upon to form that august body. At the same session, upon organization, instructions were given to the Sheriff to procure suitable accommodations wherein the Court should hold their sit- tings; the necessary books were ordered to be purchased for the use of the Court and directions given to open proposals for the construction of a jail of the following dimensions: "Log fifteen by fifteen, hewed on one side-of size to square a foot, building twelve feet high to the caves. Inside of the building to be lined with one and one-half inch plank. The flooring to be of three-inch plank-sills to be of square timber twelve by twelve inches- one oak door strongly barred and locked-out of double one and one-half inch planks-two windows twelve by eighteen, secured by one-inch square iron bars-good shingle roof-one iron bar to go across the house, one and one-quarter inch in diameter-two staples or eye-bolts." The sum of three hundred dollars for incidental expenses was directed to be obtained from Treasurer, and former Alcalde Reynolds, while vendors of goods, liquors and merchandise were called upon to appear to obtain the necessary licenses for conducting their business. These were granted to the following applicants on August 14: F. J. Hoover, W. F. Parker, Charles Hill, Leonard Story, John A. Davis, John Pinkston, (a colored man), James Miller, George Mile- water and John Morton. The State tax, and also one-quarter per cent. for public buildings and one-quarter per cent. for county purposes was ordered to be levied upon the real and personal property in the county, together with three dollars poll-tax, also leviable for the like uses. On October 14 1850, we find Captain J. B. R. Cooper and Don Antonio Osio complaining of the assessment made on their property. The Court of Sessions main- tained, however, that "in view of the expenses of the county, and the percentage to be paid to the State, it was inexpedient to curtail the assessment."
On June 9, 1851, we have the first record of a Jury being empaneled.
219
POLITICAL HISTORY.
The cause which they were brought together to try is filed as that of The State of California versus James Agnew; their names as handed down were S. B. Harris, foreman, A. W. Taliaferro, Thomas Meaux, J. L. Poindexter, James Harris and T. Mahon; while, on September 30, we find the following Grand Jury summoned: Simon B. Harris, J. Minge, A. W. Taliaferro, W. S. Parker, Timothy Mahon, Timothy Murphy, W. Johnson, J. Carroll, Wm. Urquhart, James Miller, John Knight, W. N. Boggs, Daniel Frink and William R. Wells. These names are here reproduced more that the memory of the old pioneers may be refreshed, than that their having served on a Grand Jury is a matter of political significance. In the month of December of the same year the room in. the mission building known as the juzgardo was directed to be henceforward used as the Court House and official offices, and at the same time the undermentioned places were ordered to be opened as election precincts: The Court House in San Rafael; the house of George Milewater in Saucelito; the residence of Rafael Garcia in Bolinas, and that of George Brewer in Novato.
In the month of September, 1851, Messrs. Walter Skidmore, and J. H. Shelton were admitted to the practice of law in the Court of Sessions.
Thus was the working of the Executive of Marin county started. Let us glance at the amount the carrying on of the public offices cost at this period. On April 24, 1852, we find the following entry of estimated expen- ses for that year: Expenses of County and Judicial officers, seventeen hun- dred dollars; Sheriff, Jail, and Clerk, twelve hundred dollars; and other contingent expenses making the probable cost in the aggregate to be nearly four thousand dollars.
In accordance with the provisions of an Act of the Legislature, passed May 3, 1852, the Board of Supervisors for Marin county organized on December 20th of that year by the election of T. F. Peck, Chairman, there being also present Supervisors E. T. Whittlesey and H. S. Baechtel. The above act was subsequently abolished by the action of the Legislature on March 18, 1854, when the duties reverted to the Court of Sessions.
By an Act, approved March 8, 1855, David Clengan, recently appointed and commissioned Sheriff of Marin county, in place of J. T. Stocker, who had absconded from the State, was authorized to collect the taxes.
February 28, 1856, tenders were called for the erection of a Court-house, and early in the following year J. H. Haralson, G. W. Vischer and Daniel T. Taylor were appointed a committee to confer with T. Mahon in respect to the purchase or leasing the adobe building which stood on the site now occupied by the banking establishment of Oliver Irwin, for that purpose.
On November 3, 1857, the following entry is found in the Supervisoral records : "The Board of Supervisors of Marin county having had under consideration and investigation the official conduct and affairs of G. N. Vischer, late Sheriff of Marin county, hereby resolved,
220
HISTORY OF MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
" First, That the District Attorney of said county, in obedience to the law is hereby instructed and directed to bring to the notice of the next Grand Jury of Marin county the criminal conduct of said Vischer in the discharge of his official duties as late Sheriff of said county.
" Second, That the Attorney General of said State be respectfully requested to render his assistance and advice to the District Attorney of said county in the prosecution of any suits, civil and criminal, instituted against said Vischer.
" Third, That the District Attorney be requested to commence immedia- tely a civil suit against said late Sheriff of said county, after advice and correspondence with the Attorney-General of said State, if he so advises.
" Fourth, That Dr. Paul D'Heirry, one of the Supervisors of Marin county, be authorized by said Board to employ, at the expense of the county, a law- yer to assist said District Attorney in the prosecution of any suits against said G. N. Vischer that may be instituted.
" Fifth, That the Board of Supervisors of said county shall hold a special meeting of said Board at San Rafael, on the second Monday of December next, to hear a report on the above resolutions, and to make new resolutions if necessary.
" Sixth, That Dr. Paul D'Heirry, one of the members of this Board, be delegated to overlook a strict prosecution of said suit."
In reference to the above, Shafter, Park and Heydenfelt were employed, at an expense of two thousand dollars, to prosecute Vischer, but with what result does not appear ; at any rate it would seem that the issue was not in accordance with the views of the Board of Supervisors, as the following minutes of May 18, 1858, will make clear :-
" When the Board of Supervisors of Marin county accepted office it hoped to give an impulse to the county-an impulse that up to this day it has failed to have, leaving the county far in arrears, notwithstanding the immense natural advantages that it possesses. The Board of Supervisors were decided to stop at no personal consideration or sacrifice whatever, at putting an end to that uninterrupted series of pillage of which the County Treasury has been the victim, and which has swallowed up so many thou- sands of dollars.
" The Board of Supervisors were decided to require punishment for the past to assure the present and to protect the future, and to do this energeti- cally, without hesitation or pity, or taking into consideration relatives or friendships, and fearless of enmity and revenge-and the Board has done its duty.
" The Board of Supervisors, in fine, wished, by means of an upright and wise administration, to abolish debt, to reduce the enormous taxes that weigh so heavily on the county, to execute those works of public utility, of which wealth and prosperity are the offspring, and, in fact, to support every
221
POLITICAL HISTORY.
improvement having for its object the general interests-all this was calcu- lated and possible.
" But to succeed it was necessary that the Board should be supported by an intelligent, firm and upright judicial power disposed to cause the laws to be respected against offenders whoever they might be-now the Board has been from the very beginning stopped by an impassable barrier.
" WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors only accepted its painful functions with a view to the public interest, and that each member of the Board val- ues little, personally, an employment that is in reality all sacrifice and self- devotion.
" WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors has taken all the measures that censure suggested to punish the plunder of the Treasury and to put the county in the way of improvement and prosperity.
" WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors has not found in the Court and the jury that support which it had a right to expect.
" WHEREAS, That want of power and forced inaction render the Board of Supervisors not only useless, but even hurtful, insomuch as that in remain- ing at its post the Board of Supervisors appears to exercise its right of investigation and supervision, whilst these same rights of investigation and supervision are completely paralyzed and can only serve to cover and give the appearance of legality to fraud and robbery.
" WHEREAS, This want of power in the Board of Supervisors, sanctioned by perpetual impunity, is an encouragement to pillage and to a violation of the law, and that the probity of some of the actual officers of the county would only be a momentary security.
" WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors cannot by its silence render itself an accomplice to such a state of things and cannot in any case accept the position in which it is placed.
" THEREFORE, With unanimity the Board of Supervisors of Marin county resign. P. D. HEIRRY, Chairman.
' Oliver Allen not being present on account of sickness, concurs with the Board by letter to the above resignation. P. D. HEIRRY, Chairman.
" DANIEL T. TAYLOR, Clerk."
In the Marin County Journal, dated February 22, 1862, the following remarks in regard to a contested election appear :-
" The Committee on Elections to whom was referred the case of Alex- ander Gordon, contesting the election of Archibald McAllister as member of the Assembly from Marin county, beg leave to report :---
"That they have carefully examined a large mass of documentary evi- dence submitted by the contesting parties, for the purpose of proving that illegal votes were cast for members of Assembly in Marin county at the last general election. .
222
HISTORY OF MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
"It is alleged by the contestants, that a number of illegal votes were cast, chiefly at the Gallinas precinct, in consequence of which Archibald McAllister was declared by the proper authority to be duly elected a member of the Assembly from Marin county. It appears by the poll list, and is also proved by depositions submitted in evidence, that only seventy-two persons in all voted at the Gallinas precinct at the last general election.
" The testimony also shows conclusively that only seventy-two persons voted at said precinct for members of Assembly; that of these sixty- nine voted for McAllister, and three voted for Gordon; and that no votes were cast for any other person for member of Assembly.
" The evidence shows who the three persons were who voted for Mr. Gordon. Hence it follows that as only seventy-two persons voted at the Gallinas precinct, and as seventy-two votes were for member of Assembly at said precinct, other than the three votes cast for Mr. Gordon, must, of course, have been cast for Mr. McAllister.
" It appears from the evidence that of the three votes cast at said precinct for Mr. Gordon, one was illegal; and that, besides these, there were fourteen votes for member of Assembly, which as before shown, must have been cast for McAllister.
" Besides that, it is shown, there were seven illegal votes polled at other precincts of which three were cast for McAllister and four for Mr. Gordon. Other illegal votes were proved to have been cast at other precincts, but as the committee were not able from the evidence, to determine for whom they were cast, they were set down as doubtful, from the number of illegal votes clearly proved to have been cast for McAllister, thereby giving to him the benefit of all illegal votes set down as doubtful, the result shows that Mr. McAllister received twelve illegal votes and Mr. Gordon five.
" By rejecting all the illegal votes proved to have been cast for each of the contesting parties, from the whole number of votes cast for them, as shown by the official returns, the committee find that the number of legal votes cast for each of the parties were as follows: For Archibald McAllister, five hundred and seven votes; for Alexander Gordon, five hundred and thirteen: giving Mr. Gordon a majority of six legal votes over Mr. McAllister.
" A question appears by the evidence to have been raised in reference to one vote offered at the Novato precinct, after the polls were closed-it being contended that the sun had not set, that the light was yet shining on a high hill some two miles distant.
" The officers of the election decided that it was already sun-down and refused the vote, which is shown would have been cast for Mr. McAllister. Should it be deemed proper to count this vote for him, Mr. Gordon would still have a majority of five legal votes over Mr. McAllister. All of which is respectfully submitted. Tilton of San Francisco, Chairman; John Yule,
223
POLITICAL HISTORY.
C. Maclay, C. B. Porter, Edward Evey. I concur in the foregoing report as it goes, but think it should be stated that both parties were prevented from taking further testimony because of the expiration of the committee. G. W. Seaton."
It is also on record that during the session of the Legislature above noted, the following amendments to the Constitution were proposed :-
Article IV of the Constitution to be so amended as to provide for sessions of the Legislature every two years, instead of every year as was then the custom. This would, of course, have necessitated the extension of the terms of office-of the Senators to four, and of the Representatives to two years. No officer, however, was to be superseded by the action of this amendment It was intended that the other provisions of the article should remain intact.
.Article V to be so amended as to increase the terms of office of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, and Surveyor General to four years instead of two. The Secretary of State to be elected by the people instead of being appointed by the Governor, by and with the consent of the Senate.
Article VI to remodel the judiciary system. The Supreme Court to con- sist of five members instead of three. The election of Justices of the Supreme Court to be separated from the election of other officers. These to hold office for the term of ten years. The number of District Judges to be reduced to fourteen. The jurisdiction of the latter to be limited to cas es involving over three hundred dollars. The jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace to be increased to that amount.
Article XI. The term of the Superintendent of Instruction to be increased to four years.
It is always a pleasing duty to chronicle the conferring of any distinction upon a distinguished public servant, for this reason the following words find place in these pages :-
On November 4, 1862, the practicing lawyers of San Rafael, Thomas H. Hanson in the chair, and James McM. Shafter, Secretary, offered the accom- . panying resolutions upon the resignation of Judge E. W. Mckinstry from the Bench of the Seventh Judicial District.
" Resolved, That in hearing of the contemplated resignation of the Hon- - orable E. W. Mckinstry, Judge of the Seventh Judicial District of this State, we are affected with a deep and common regret. We deem it proper to leave this enduring testimonial of our respectful estimation for the judi- cial character of Judge Mckinstry, and of our grateful appreciation for his urbanity and kindness to us personally.
" Resolved, That we tender to Judge Mckinstry our heartiest wishes for his future prosperity, and request he would be pleased to order these resolu- tions spread upon the minutes of the court."
224
HISTORY OF MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
"In presenting these resolutions, Mr. Shafter proceeded to say: "May it please the Court :- The members of the Bar now present have practiced in the tribunal over which you have presided for several years past. While some of us are yet young, others have been a quarter of a century familiar with courts, and have had enlarged opportunity for comparisons of judicial character and conduct.
" We do not therefore think it egotistical when we claim for the conclusion expressed in the resolutions, which the Bar has honored me with the duty of presenting, that full credence which belongs to the judgment of those com- petent to pass upon judicial character.
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.