History of San Joaquin County, California : with biographical sketches of leading men and women of the county who have been identified with its growth and development from the early days to the present, Part 9

Author: Tinkham, George H. (George Henry), b. 1849
Publication date: 1923
Publisher: Los Angeles, Calif. : Historic Record Co.
Number of Pages: 1660

USA > California > San Joaquin County > History of San Joaquin County, California : with biographical sketches of leading men and women of the county who have been identified with its growth and development from the early days to the present > Part 9

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).

HISTORY OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

these lands to McLaughlin than the Devil had when he tried to tempt the Savior, but they got a ratification of the contract and on that McLaughlin obtained a certificate from the General Land Office. It was believed by the settlers that the railroad had no right to the lands and they again determined to buckle on their armor for the vindication of their right. Ross C. Sargent first started the fight . . . and he appealed to the Secretary of the Interior who declared that the railroad company had no right to a foot of land in this county. The settlers' thought that finally ended it. They were again mistaken. The power of money is almost omnipotent and it was liberally used in this case. After the case had been fought, after the decision had been rendered, after patents to the land had been issued, Secretary Delano reversed his decision, and said the land belonged to the railroad company. Their men were seen actively at work urging the settlers to settle and they suc- ceeded in getting many people to take their quit-claim deed for lands they never owned. McLaughlin then prepared an agreed case. G. D. Newhall, a nephew of McLaughlin, sued Charles W. Sanger, a brother-in-law and a de- fault was taken. It was appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court in the hope of getting a final decision in the same quiet and secret manner. Judge C. L. Robinson made the discovery of the manner of the proceeding and notified the settlers, who agreed to defend the Newhall case and prevent the wished-for judgment by default. Newhall suddely found that he had more advocates for his case than he desired, as he was anxious to be defeated, and when the decision came sustaining his title to the land and with it the title of hundreds of set- tlers now living upon the grant, it was to him like a clap of thunder from a clear sky, filling him with astonishment."

First County Election

The Legislature in December, '49, passed a law calling for an election April 1, 1850, for the following state and county officers, a clerk of the Supreme Court, a district attorney for each judicial district, a county judge, sheriff, clerk, recorder, assessor, treasurer, and cor- oner. Although the county had not a dollar in their possession to pay office-holders' sal- aries, the candidates for office were as numer- ous as political grafters around a nominee. Ben Williams, John P. Jones and J. P. Brush were aspirants for the judgeship; Dr. Richard P, Ashe, Thomas K. Wilson and William B. Stockton wanted to fill the sheriff's office; Samuel Booker was out for the district attor- neyship, and John B. Clements, after whom the town of Clements was named, and C. D. Per- kins were after the coroner's office. Perkins

had many warm friends, and anxious to have him elected they published the following card in the Times: "The friends of Captain Caleb Durham Perkins (vulgarly called Sikey) an- nounce him as a candidate for coroner

At the same time they would call the attention of the public to his distinguished services in the late war with Mexico." Strange to say, the heroes of the Mexican war were no more popular than the heroes of the Allied War and he was defeated by Dr. Clements, ten to one. The precincts in the county were seven in num- ber and we give the vote in each precinct. The figures also show the small number of voters in the county. Athearn and Davis ranch 33, Isbel's ranch 15, Red Tent 13 San Joaquin City 44, French Camp 50, Knights Ferry 44, Stockton 632. The total vote of the county for all of the candidates was as follows: Clerk of the Supreme Court, E. L. Thorp 571, W. G. Morey 235, W. E. Shannon 95; district attor- ney, Samuel A. Booker 1007; county judge, Ben Williams 509, J. P. Brush 410, J. W. Jones 227, W. B. Sloan 96; county clerk, A. C. Brad- ford 433, J. A. Patterson 415, J. A. Mclellan 102, N. MacEachran 262; county attorney, E. L. B. Brooks 367, Henry A. Crabb 313, J. R. Shaffer 301; sheriff, Dr. R. P. Ashe 436, John Taber 353, Thomas K. Wilson 213, J. E. Nutt- man 235, W. B. Stockton 218; assessor, B. F. Whittier 572, Thomas McSpeddon 558; re- corder, A. A. Mix 344, W. M. Willowby 287, M. Robertson 101, J. M. Schofield, 34; treas- urer, H. W. Alden 509, C. J. Buffum 505; cor- oner, Dr. J. B. Clements 985, C. D. Perkins 47 ; surveyor, Walter Heron 827, A. K. Flint 129.

The Stockton . vote for county officers re- sulted as follows : District attorney, Samuel A. Booker 632; county judge, Ben Williams 243, J. P. Brush 354, J. W. Jones 198, Wm. B. Sloan 95; sheriff, R. P. Ashe 253, John Taber 243, John B. Nuttman 200, T. K. Wilson 181, W. B. Stockton 15; clerk, A. C. Bradford 383, N. MacEachran 231, J. Potter 193, J. A. McLellan 97; attorney, H. A. Crabb 261, E. L. B. Brooks 232, J. R. Shaffer 230; recorder, C. A. Marriner 216, W. M. Willowby 235, A. A. Mix 192, M. Robertson 92; coroner, Dr. J. B. Clements 691, C. D. Perkins 13; assesor, Thomas McSped- don 355, B. F. Whittier 414.

The young pioneers of Stockton were hot- headed and impetuous, even those who in later years became its best and most-honored citi- zens, and before the county government was completely organized they scored severely the Court of Sessions for doing its duty in accord- ance with law. At that time the Court of Ses- sions in each county attended to all county business, whatever its nature. A special law of the legislature passed April 10, 1850, author- ized the San Joaquin County court to levy a tax for the building of a court house, and a

HISTORY OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

tax for county revenue. The tax for a revenue licensed about every thing in sight; merchants doing business were taxed $30 for two months and $100 for twelve months, and country ped- dlers from $10 to $33. Saloons were taxed $75 a year and livery stables $100 for the same time. Butcher shops and draymen were taxed, and even mechanics at their trade; blacksmiths for twelve months were taxed $100, carpen- ters and tinners $75 and watch makers and shoemakers $50 for the same period of time. The county clerk, A. C. Bradford, in a pub- lished notice, June 29, requested all merchants to appear at the treasurer's office for a license to carry on business. Instead of obeying the mandates of the law, by means of placards posted in every section of the town, they called upon all citizens to attend a mass meeting July 18, "on the public square near the Presby- terian Church, to consider the most appropri- ate means to rid themselves of the present tax of the Court of Sessions." At the time ap- pointed, 8 o'clock, "a large concourse of the in- habitants assembled," says the Stockton Times. The meeting was called to order and Dr. George A. Shurtleff was elected president of the meeting, Hiram Green and H. B. Under- hill, vice-presidents, and J. C. Norris, secre- tary. The president in opening the meeting said, during his remarks, that "the tax was levied on all classes except ministers, doctors and lawyers and that it was an opprobious and unjust tax as it was unequal." The merchant with a large store and an extensive business was taxed $100, the same as a poor trader with a small business. Moreover the laboring me- chanic was directly taxed. This was unjust. A committee of five was appointed to report at a subsequent meeting "as to the best means to be adopted in order to obtain relief from this oppressive taxation."

On the following Tuesday a second mass meeting was held on the square and after the president had called the meeting to order, the committee of five, namely, Hiram Green, Dr. R. P. Ashe, H. W. Wallis, John Grewell and Dr. George A. Shurtleff, offered the following resolutions, which were unanimously adopted : "Mr. President and Fellow-citizens ; your com- mittee after having given the subject due con- sideration have come to the conclusion that the act of the Legislature giving to the Court of Sessions the power of levying a tax upon the honest industries of the county is an arrogant assumption of power wholly unprecedented in the annals of history. Your committee would also remind you to the fact that Califor- nia is still a territory and until she is admit- ted as a state she has not a shadow of right to enact and enforce such laws. Resolved, that a committee of nine be appointed to visit Judge

Williams and request him to erase from the records the order of the court levying said tax."

That was certainly an insolent demand, al- thought the committee were correct in declar- ing the Legislature an illegal body, but listen to this: "Resolved that if the above request is not granted that we, the citizens of Stockton, do solemnly pledge our sacred word of honor to resist the operation of the law even to the shedding of blood." The committee called upon Judge Williams. In reply he said in a lengthy address, "The licenses referred 10 were the acts of the Court of Sessions and can- not be repealed by that court. Your resolu- tion is addressed to me as an individual; as such I have no discretion in the matter. Had you appealed to me as Judge of the Court of Sessions, I can only say that the request if granted would be one for which any judge would be liable to impeachment, and any legal action in the premises can be had only by the Court of Sessions composed of a county judge and two associate judges at a regular term for holding said court." It was later shown that the clerk had made several mistakes in levying licenses and the matter was smoothed over. In this incident we see the activity, the energy and the spirit of the pioneers in demanding their rights and justice, as they understood it -the men whose history will fill these pages during the next twenty-five years.

Creation of Townships

Soon after California's admission into the Union, September 9, 1850, the Government sent out surveyors to divide the state into townships and sections. Each township was six miles square and each section one mile square. In locating the east and west base line of the central part of the state the sur- veyors selected the highest peak of Mt. Diablo as their starting point and this line runs due east through French Camp to Trigo, a small railroad station on the Oakdale line of the Southern Pacific. The Court of Sessions in defining the boundaries of the three town- ships, O'Neal, Castoria and Elkhorn, created by them, gave no attention to the, township area of the Government surveyors. In fact it was not necessary to limit a township to six square miles as outside of the townships named the county was scarcely inhabited.

O'Neal township, created in 1853, was so named after John O'Neal, a popular southern man and sheriff of that day. The township embraced the whole of the Weber survey, El Campo de los Franceses and nearly all of the swamp and overflowed land to the west. Then it was a vast area of tules and the home of wild game. To-day, much of it reclaimed, it is the richest fruit and vegetable raising land in the state.

HISTORY OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

Castoria, a Spanish word, meaning beaver, was also created in 1853. It took in the entire county south of the base line. . Its bounds were the San Joaquin River on the west and it extended to Knights Ferry on the east with the Stanislaus River as its southern boundry. At the present time Lathrop and French Camp are within its bounds.

Elkhorn township was also created by the Court of Sessions, 1853. It was so named be- cause of the large quantity of elk horns found in that locality. The township, like that of Castoria, was exceedingly large. North of the Weber survey, it extended east from the Mokelumne River to Calaveras County, with Dry Creek its northern and the base line its southern boundary. Lodi and Woodbridge to-day are within its bounds. The township is famous for its wonderful grapes and boun- teous supply of fruits.

Elliott township was established in 1855, the supervisors cutting off the entire eastern half of Elkhorn township to form the new territory. Its bounds were the same as those of Elkhorn, except on the west. The division was made at the request of the settlers in Lockeford, for that town and Woodbridge were rivals for business and township hon- ors. Within the present township are Locke- ford and Clements.

Tulare, probably named because of its im- mense tule growth, was created in 1856. The reasons for its being set aside as a township I cannot imagine, unless it be that John West- ley Van Benscroten was anxious to make Grayson a prominent township village. The township included all of the land within the county west and south of the San Joaquin River. Irrigation of the sandy land and re- clamation of the swamp land is now making the section very productive. In this township lies Tracy, Banta, Vernalis and San Joaquin City. The territory in which Grayson is sit- uated was given, in 1860, to Stanislaus county.

Dent township was created by the super- visors, February 17, 1859. It was named after George W. Dent, a resident of Knights Fer- ry and a brother-in-law of Captain U. S. Grant. The township was formed by cutting off the east half of Castoria and the south part of El- liott township. This formed a township near- ly twelve miles square, with the Stanislaus River as its southern boundary, Calaveras County its eastern and Douglas township- created at the same time-as its northern boundary. The following year, 1860, the legis- lature, slicing in half Dent township, and tak- ing a part of Douglas township, gave it to Stanislaus County. The division included the town of Knights Ferry, then a prosperous town of over a thousand inhabitants, and the act was one of the many political tricks of that

day. Ripon, Burwood and Atlanta are the towns of Dent township.

Douglas township was named in honor of David F. Douglas, senator from the San Joaquin district. The township was created in 1859. In forming the township the super- visors cut off the southern part of Elliott township. It is bounded on the north by El- liott, east by Stanislaus County, south by the base line and west by the Weber survey. The legislature in giving additional territory to Stanislaus County in 1860 also took a part of Douglas township. Within this district lie the towns of Peters, Linden and Farmington.

Liberty township was created at the request of many residents in that section in June, 1861: As the territory then was all allotted the new township was carved out of the north- ern portion of Elliott. The only town is Acampo. There was a town founded and pros- pered for a season called Liberty, but the es- tablishing of a railroad station at Mokelumne City ruined the after prospects of Liberty.

Union, the last created township, was formed in May, 1861, from the western part of Elkhorn township. The original territory was largely swamp and overflowed land, but now reclaimed; the passing through of the Western Pacific Railroad made this rich land very valuable. Land is valuable principally for resident or productive purposes and no land can be of value unless given cheap and quick transportations to market.

Staten Island township comprises one of the soil-richest islands in the state. It lies between the west and south fork of the Mokelumne River, the west fork of that river being the boundary line between Sacramento and San Joaquin County, according to the original Gibbs survey of 1850. Along in the middle '70's Staten Island, having been reclaimed, Sacramento was very anxious to annex the island to that county for as was stated later it contained 7,000 acres and was assessed at $14 per acre. By some political "hocus pocus," as the Independent expressed it, they succeeded in getting the legislature of 1876 to annex the island to Sacramento County. The island by nature and the original county law belonged to San Joaquin County and the residents of the township were quite wrathy over its loss. One reason of their anger was that it com- pelled the residents on the island to cross the Mokelumne River and travel to Sacramento for all official business. At the following leg- islature, in 1878, Assemblyman Ross C. Sar- gent of San Joaquin introduced a bill, which passed, reannexing Staten Island to San Joa- quin County. The legislature only performed their duty and corrected a wrong, but some of the citiens of the Capital, peeved at the result, strongly censured Assemblyman Grove L.

HISTORY OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

Johnson, father of Hiram Johnson, for not preventing the passage of the bill. Johnson in reply said, "I got the bill referred to the Sacra- mento and San Joaquin delegation and then getting possession of it, I locked it up in my desk and kept it there until Sargent threat- ened to introduce a resolution demanding me to report it." Johnson by this trick kept the bill secreted for nearly two months and then San Joaquin came into its own.

Effort to Divide County

Some years previous to the Staten Island affair, an effort was made to dismember the northern part of San Joaquin County and cre- ate a county to be known as Mokelumne County. And because of the proverbial slow- ness of the citizens of Stockton, it came near being successful. The scheme was engineered by John M. Benson, then the owner of Ben- son's Ferry over the Mokelumne River a short distance below the present town of New Hope. He planned to form a new county and make his land near the ferry the county seat. Ben- son was very active in the movement and by making the farmers believe that the value of their land would be increased and their taxes decreased, he obtained hundreds of signatures petitioning the legislature "that the south half of Sacramento County and the north half of San Joaquin, embracing 600 square miles and an agricultural population of between two and three thousand be formed into a county known as Mokelumne." It was a splendid scheme on the part of Benson, but unfortunately for him, just one month after the introduction of the bill into the assembly, he was shot and killed February, 1859, by Green Palmer, one of his employees.

Previous to his tragic death Benson had been assisted in the project by J. E. Sheridan, assemblyman from Sacramento County, who lived in that section of the proposed new coun- ty, and he, carrying on the work, introduced many petitions from citizens asking that the new county be created. Their argument was that they were remote from the county seat ; which in the winter season was inaccessible because of the bad condition of the roads; and that they were heavily and unjustly taxed for criminal and hospital expense, incident to counties containing a population like that of Stockton, and being exclusively agricultural and containing no cities their taxes would be much lighter than at present.

In reply, hundreds of the citizens of San Joaquin opposing the new county creation, de- clared that the most far distant part of San Joaquin County was only thirty-five miles from the county seat, and the new county if formed would be only ten miles from Stock- ton. Assemblyman George C. Holman of San 5

Joaquin, in speaking against the bill, said, "This project to dismember the county will take one-tenth of her taxable property, and that the most valuable portion; and one- tenth of her entire revenue. We are now in a healthy financial condition, her bonds are at par, something I believe cannot be said of any other county, and we have only a small debt, and I protest in all sincerity against this divi- sion." "At this time," said the Sacramento Union, "the citizens of north San Joaquin had awoke from their lethargy, for they had learned that to reach the proposed county seat, they would be compelled to travel within a few miles of Sacramento, because of the many waterways between the plains and the Sacra- mento River. Nearly every man below the proposed line, as well as those living on Grand Island, have signed the remonstrance." Not- withstanding this fact the pro-division men pushed the bill and March 30 it passed the as- sembly by the large majority of 42 to 22.

The day following the passage of the bill was "April Fool's" day, but it was no joke day for San Joaquin, for if they failed to bestir themselves, the Tokay belt would have been segregated from the county. "Early in the morning," says the Republican, "groups of men were seen standing on the street corners earnestly discussing the county division ques- tion." After some deliberation as to what course to pursue to prevent the loss of that productive tract they concluded to call a mass meeting that evening in the city hall, "to dis- cuss and take some action on the bill." Circu- lars were posted about town and that evening the hall was crowded. Madison Walthall called the meeting to order, and Judge A. C. Baine was elected president, H. B. Underhill and George R. Choate, vice-presidents, and V. M. Peyton and S. T. Nye, secretaries. A com- mittee of five was appointed to present resolu- tions and the committee returning offered the following which were unanimously adopted : "Resolved, that we solemnly protest against the proposed division of our county, and urge not only upon our own immediate representa- tives, but upon the members of the senate gen- erally, that the interests of the people of this county imperatively demand that they shall resist in every proper measure the division of the county." "Resolved, that we shall con- sider any member of the legislature who sup- ports the measure now pending to divide the county as hostile to our interest and unworthy of our confidence and support for any office, State or National." A committee comprising Judge A. G. Stakes, Thomas J. Keyes, P. A. Athearn and Wm. Lanius was appointed to visit the Capitol and interview the senators. On the day of their arrival, April 2, the senate received notice that the assembly had passed

HISTORY OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

the bill. Ten days later by a vote of 13 to 9 the bill was indefinitely postponed. Senator Bradley, who voted in the negative changed his vote to yes and moved a reconsideration of the vote. On the following day they refused by a vote of 19 to 14 to reconsider their vote of the previous day. Then again came the vote on indefinite postponement of the bill which carried 16 to 15. It was a close call.

This was the second attempt to divide the northern part of the county, the first bill to that effect having been introduced in 1857, but met with no response. For the third time a division bill was introduced in 1860, money having been freely expended in order to carry out the scheme. The leader in the movement was Jerry R. Woods, the founder of Wood- bridge; he was, well supported by his two lieutenants, Assemblymen Campbell of San Joaquin, who superseded the honest assembly- man, G. C. Holman, and Goodman of Sacra- mento county. So sure were these men that the county bill would become a law during the winter they published in the Sacramento newspapers, "Lots for sale in the proposed new county of Mokelumne," said the Sacra- mento Standard. During the winter Woods had been industriously engaged in getting the farmers to petition the legislature for the cre- ation of the new county. He made the same argument as did Benson that their taxes would be decreased, and their land increased in value, and again they fell for it. The bill was introduced into the assembly January 26, 1860, by Assemblyman Campbell, petitioning for the formation of the new county, with its boundary line just south of Sacramento Coun- ty "and seven miles south of the former line." The southern line would have included the towns of Woodbridge, Liberty, Lockeford, Clements, and the present towns of New Hope, Lodi and Acampo.

Fortunately for this county a sudden change of opinion took place among the farming com- munity, and said the correspondent, "those who formerly favored it now bitterly oppose it. One reason, the people did not clearly understand the proposition, and were made to believe that the taxes would be less, but they have discovered that the argument was falla- cious. Another reason is that although the lands would be increased in value by having the county seat there, it would be of no advan- tage to the farmers, for many of them have no titles because of the Chabolla grant, and would have to pay the increase or be ejected ; and thereby lose all the improvements nor will it raise any more grain or raise the price of wheat." Andreas Pico, as we have already noticed, claimed almost this entire section of country.

There was another set-back to Woods' scheme, namely, the claim of William Fugitt, that his town, Liberty, should be the county seat. His friends claimed that it was "the cen- ter of the population of the proposed county as well as the natural center. Mr. Fugitt had erected a new hotel, as well as other build- ings at considerable expense. Woods, fearing that the bill might be defeated by the strong opposition, had the bill changed and the south line extended three miles," "so as to get addi- tional votes," and the correspondent declared, "at any rate we of Woodbridge have got them." "The bill came up for action in the assembly February 28 with five of the mem- bers from San Joaquin and Sacramento coun- ties favoring the bill, with Thomas Laspeyre of San Joaquin opposing it." Already 1,000 names have been sent up," said the Republi- can, "and 300 more today. The signatures rep- resent $3,000,000 and such interests should not be disregarded by the legislature." John C. White, a farmer who was inside the limits of the new proposed county, strongly opposed the change and said he would give $1,000 to have the bill not pass, as the new county would be burdened at the outset by a debt of $36,000. He, however, had no objection to the bill if his ranch be excluded. Laspeyre de- clared that "from its origin-in 1859-until the present time, private speculation, political aspirations and office seekers had been the 'motor' which had been propelling and ad- vancing this measure." The bill came up for final action in the assembly March 15, and after a long and spirited debate it was indefi- nitely postponed by a vote of 34 to 23. It was a boomerang to the pro-new county men and Goodman, changing his vote from no to yes, moved a reconsideration of the vote on the morrow. The vote on Goodman's motion stood aye 19, no 34.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

History of San Joaquin County, California : with biographical sketches of leading men and women of the county who have been identified with its growth and development from the early days to the present, Part 9

Author: Tinkham, George H. (George Henry), b. 1849 Publication date: 1923 Publisher: Los Angeles, Calif. : Historic Record Co. Number of Pages: 1660

Author: Tinkham, George H. (George Henry), b. 1849
Publication date: 1923
Publisher: Los Angeles, Calif. : Historic Record Co.
Number of Pages: 1660