USA > California > San Mateo County > History of San Mateo County, California, including its geography, topography, geology, climatography, and description, together with an historical sketch of California; a record of the Mexican grants; the early history and settlement, compiled from the most authentic sources; some of the names of Spanish and American pioneers; legislative history; a record of its cities and towns; biographical sketches of representative men; etc., etc > Part 20
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
For twelve years the vexed question was apparently settled, when Alvinza Hayward, on the 4th day of November, 1873, conveyed to the board of super- visors by conditional deed, lots 5 and 6 in block 2 of the Oak Lawn Villa lots of San Mateo, conditioned upon the erection thereon within the period of two years of the court-house and jail.
On the 15th day of November, the board of supervisors gave notice of an election to be held December 9th, 1873, to determine the question of the removal of the county seat. At this contest money was freely expended, and herculean efforts put forth by the respective partisans of the rival towns.
171
COUNTY SEAT CONTESTS.
The board of supervisors on the 15th of December, canvassed the returns and announced the following result:
Redwood City, seven hundred and three votes, and San Mateo, six hundred and ninety-three, leaving a majority in favor of Redwood City of ten votes.
Instead of determining the question, this election had the effect to stimulate the partisans of San Mateo to renew the contest. Within five months from the date of the last election, and on May 4th, 1874, J. E. Butler, of San Mateo, presented a petition to the board of supervisors asking that another election be ordered. A majority of the board were favorable to this movement, and the prayer of the petitioners was granted, the reason for granting it being found in one of a series of resolutions offered by supervisor Ames, in the following language: WHEREAS, the election heretofore held in this county to decide this question was and is void and of no effect, by reason of a failure to give notice thereof, as required by law," &c. The day of election was fixed on June 13th, 1874. But while the board was in session, May 11th, sheriff Edgar served upon them a writ of certiorari from the supreme court, directing a stay of all proceedings in the matter, and ordering a transcript of the papers in the case, with the records of the board relating thereto, to be sent up for review.
The case in the supreme court was entitled, " Atherton vs. the board of supervisors of San Mateo County," and was an application for a writ of review based upon the affidavit of Faxon D. Atherton, alleging, among other things, . that the board had exceeded their jurisdiction in ordering the election for June 13th, in that but five months had elapsed since an election was had to determine the same question, and that the sufficiency and genuineness of the petition of May 4th were never verified nor proved. Campbell, Fox & Camp- bell appeared for the relator, and W. H. L. Barnes for the respondents. The case was argued on the 25th of May and taken under advisement by the court, but in a few days they rendered their decision, which was adverse to the peti- tioner, and the writ was dismissed.
Subsequently, C. N. Fox, sued out a writ of prohibition from the twelfth district court, based upon what were claimed to be irregularities in the peti- tion, apparent on its face, and not involving the question of law presented in the supreme court before the writ was served. Upon the hearing of this case in the district court, the writ was dismissed, on the ground that it was res adjudicata from Atherton's case. An appeal was taken, and a rehearing obtained in the supreme court on the 11th of June, when Mr. Barnes appeared for the board and moved the court to dismiss the writ. The motion was based on various technical grounds, but finally counsel agreed upon a square issue of facts as to the validity of the petition, and thereupon the order staying pro- ceedings was so far modified as to permit the election to be held, and the result ascertained, but no official result to be declared until the further order of the court.
172
HISTORY OF SAN MATEO COUNTY.
The election was held, and resulted in an overwhelming majority in favor of San Mateo, she having a majority of two hundred and sixty votes.
July 14th, an order was made in the case allowing some fourteen issues of fact to be tried, and appointing ex-Governor H. H. Haight referee to try the same, with directions to take and report to the court, in writing, the evidence, together with his conclusions thereon. Afterwards Col. J. P. Hoge was, by order of the court, substituted in place of Governor Haight. He commenced hearing testimony on the 24th of September, and on the 24th of February, 1875, the case was decided, and the writ of prohibition ordered. Thus again was decided in favor of Redwood City another victory in this memorable series of contests.
MEXICAN GRANTS.
THE subject of the tenure of land in California is one which is so little understood, that it has been deemed best to quote at length the following report on the subject of land titles in California, made in pursuance of instruc- tions from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Interior, by William Carey Jones, published in Washington in the Year 1850,-a more exhaustive document it would be difficult to find:
On July 12, 1849, Mr. Jones had been appointed a "confidential agent of the Government, to proceed to Mexico and California, for the purpose of pro- curing information as to the condition of land titles in California." Pursuant to these instructions, he embarked from New York on the 17th July; arriv- ing at Chagres on the 29th, he at once proceeded to Panama, but got no op- portunity, until that day month, of proceeding on his journey to this State. At length, on September 19th, he arrived at Monterey, the then capital of Cali- fornia. After visiting San José and San Francisco, he returned to Monterey, and there made arrangements for going by land to Los Angeles and San Diego, but finding this scheme impracticable on account of the rainy season, he made the voyage by steamer. On December 7th he left San Diego for Acapulco in Mexico, where he arrived on the 24th; on the 11th he left that city, and on the 18th embarked from Vera Cruz for Mobile.
We now commence his report, believing that so able a document will prove of interest to the reader :-
I. " TO THE MODE OF CREATING TITLES TO LAND, FROM THE FIRST INCEPTION TO THE PERFECT TITLE, AS PRACTICED BY MEXICO WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF CALIFORNIA.
All the grants of land made in California (except pueblo or village lots, and except, perhaps, some grants north of the Bay of San Francisco, as will be hereafter noticed), subsequent to the independence of Mexico, and after the establishment of that government in California, were made by the different political governors. The great majority of them were made subsequent to January, 1832, and consequently under the Mexican Colonization Law of August 18, 1824, and the government regulations, adopted in pursuance of the law dated November 21, 1828. In January, 1832 General José
174
HISTORY OF SAN MATEO COUNTY.
Figueroa became Governor of the then territory of California, under a con - mission from the government at Mexico, replacing Victoria, who, after having the year before displaced Echandrea, was himself driven out by a revolution. The installation of Figueroa restored quiet, after ten years of civil commotion, and was at a time when Mexico was making vigorous efforts to reduce and populate her distant territories, and consequently granting lands on a liberal scale. In the act of 1824, a league square (being 4,428.402-1000 acres) is the smallest measurement of rural property spoken of; and of these leagues square, eleven (or nearly fifty thousand acres) might be conceded in a grant to one individual. By this law, the States composing the federation, were authorized to make special provision for colonization within their respective limits, and the colonization of the territories, "conformably to the principles of law " charged upon the Central Government. California was of the latter descrip- tion, being designated a Territory in the Acta Constitutiva of the Mexican Federation, adopted January 31, 1824, and by the Constitution adopted 4th October of the same year .*
The colonization of California and granting lands therein, was, there- fore, subsequent to the law of August 18, 1824, under the direction and control of the Central Government. That government, as already stated, gave regulations for the same November 21, 1828.
The directions were very simple. They gave the governors of the terri- tories the exclusive faculty of making grants within the terms of the law- that is, to the extent of eleven leagues, or sitios, to individuals; and coloniza- tion grants (more properly contracts)-that is, grants of larger tracts to empresarios, or persons who should undertake, for a consideration in land, to bring families to the country for the purpose of colonization. Grants of the first description, that is, to families or single persons, and not exceeding eleven sitios, were "not to be held definitely valid," until sanctioned by the Terri- torial Deputation. Those of the second class, that is, empresario or coloniza- tion grants (or contracts) required a like sanction by the Supreme Govern- ment. In case the concurrence of the Deputation was refused to a grant of the first mentioned class, the Governor should appeal, in favor of the grantee, from the Assembly to the Supreme Government.
The "first inception " of the claim, pursuant to the regulations, and as practiced in California, was a petition to the Governor, praying for the grant, specifying usually the quantity of land asked, and designating its position, with some descriptive object or boundary, and also stating the age, country and vocation of the petitioner. Sometimes, also, (generally at the commence- ment of this system) a rude map or plan of the required grant, showing its
*The political condition of California was changed by the Constitution of 29th December, and act for the division of the Republic into Departments of December 30, 1836. The two Califor. nias then became a Department, the confederation being broken up and the States reduced to Departments. The same colonization system, however, seems to have continued in California.
175
MEXICAN GRANTS.
shape and position, with reference to other tracts, or to natural objects, was presented with the petition. This practice, however, was gradually disused, and few of the grants made in late years have any other than a verbal description.
The next step was usually a reference of the petition, made on the margin by the governor, to the prefect of the district, or other near local officer where the land petitioned for was situated, to know if it was vacant, and could be granted without injury to third persons or the public, and sometimes to know if the petitioner's account of himself was true. The reply (informe) of the prefect, or other officer, was written upon or attached to the petition, and the whole returned to the governor. The reply being satisfactory, the governor then issued the grant in form. On its receipt, or before, (often before the petition, even.) the party went into possession. It was not unfrequent, of late years, to omit the formality of sending the petition to the local authorities, and it was never requisite, if the governor already possessed the necessary infor- mation concerning the land and the parties. In that case the grant followed immediately on the petition. Again, it sometimes happened that the reply of the local authority was not explicit, or that third persons intervened, and the grant was thus for some time delayed. With these qualifications, and cover- ing the great majority of cases, the practice may be said to have been: 1. The petition; 2. The reference to the prefect or alcalde; 3. His report, or informe; 4. The grant from the governor.
" When filed, and how, and by whom recorded."
The originals of the petition and informe, and any other preliminary papers in the case, were filed, by the secretary, in the government archives, and with them a copy (the original being delivered to the grantee) of the grant; the whole attached together so as to form one document, entitled, col- lectively, an expediente. During the governorship of Figueroa, and some of his successors, that is, from May 22, 1833, to May 9, 1836, the grants were likewise recorded in a book kept for that purpose (as prescribed in the "regu- lations" above referred to) in the archives. Subsequent to that time, there was no record, but a brief memorandum of the grant; the expediente, how- ever, being still filed. Grants were also sometimes registered in the office of the prefect of the district where the lands lay; but the practice was not constant, nor the record generally in permanent form.
The next, and final step in the title was the approval of the grant by the Territorial Deputation (that is, the local legislature, afterward, when the terri- tory was created into a Department, called the "Departmental Assembly.") For this purpose, it was the governor's office to communicate the fact of the grant, and all information concerning it, to the assembly. It was here referred to a committee (sometimes called a committee on vacant lands, sometimes on
176
HISTORY OF SAN MATEO COUNTY.
agriculture), who reported at a subsequent sitting. The approval was seldom refused; but there are many instances where the governor omitted to commu- nicate the grant to the assembly, and it consequently remained unacted on. The approval of the assembly obtained, it was usual for the secretary to deliver to the grantee, on application, a certificate of the fact; but no other record or registration of it was kept than the written proceedings of the assem- blv. There are no doubt instances, therefore, where the approval was in fact obt ned, but a certificate not applied for, and as the journals of the assembly, now remaining in the archives, are very imperfect, it can hardly be doubted that many grants have received the approval of the assembly, and no record of the fact now exists. Many grants were passed upon and approved by the assembly in the Winter and Spring of 1846. as I discovered by loose memo- randa, apparently made by the clerk of the assembly for future entry, and referring to the grants by their numbers -- sometimes a dozen or more on a single small piece of paper, but of which I could find no other record.
" So, also with the subsequent steps, embracing the proceedings as to sur- vey, up to the perfecting of the title."
There were not, as far as I could learn, any regular surveys made of grants in California. up to the time of the cessation of the former government. There was no public or authorized surveyor in the country. The grants usually contained a direction that the grantee should receive judicial posses- sion of the land from the proper magistrate (usually the nearest alcalde), in virtue of the grant, and that the boundaries of the tract should then be desig- nated by that functionary with " suitable land marks." But this injunction was usually complied with, only by procuring the attendance of the magis- trate, to give judicial possession according to the verbal description contained in the grant. Some of the old grants have been subsequently surveyed, as I was informed, by a surveyor under appointment of Col. Mason. acting as Governor of California. I did not see any official record of such surveys. or understand that there was any. The "perfecting of the title " I suppose to have been accomplished when the grant received the concurrence of the assembly; all provisions of the law, and of the colonization regulations of the supreme government, pre-requisites to the title being "definitely valid," liav- ing been then fulfilled. These, I think, must be counted complete tilles.
" And if there be any more books, files or archives of any kind whatso- ever, showing the nature, character and extent of these grants."
The following list comprises the books of record and memoranda of grants, which I found existing in the government archives at Monterey:
1. " 1828. Cuaderno del registro de los sitios, fierras y señales que posean los habitantes del territorio de la Nueva California." [Book of registration
1
MEXICAN GRANTS.
of the farms, brands, and marks (for marking cattle), possessed by the inhabi- tants of the territory of New California. ]
This book contains information of the situation, boundaries and appurte- nanees of several of the missions, as hereafter noticed; of two pueblos, San José and Branciforte, and the records of about twenty grants, made by various Span- ish, Mexican and local authorities, at different times, between 1784 and 1825, and two dated 1829. This book appears to have been arranged upon infor- mation obtained in an endeavor of the government to procure a registration of all the occupied lands of the territory.
2. Book marked "Titulos."
This book contains records of grants, numbered from one to one hundred and eight, of various dates, from May 22, 1833 to May 9, 1836, by the suc- cessive governors, Figueroa, José Castro, Nicholas Gutierrez and Mariano Chico. A part of these grants, (probably all) are included in a file of expe- dientes of grants, hereafter described, marked from number one to number five hundred and seventy-nine; but the numbers in the book do not corres- pond with the numbers of the same grants in the expedientes.
3. " Libro donde se asciertan los despachos de terrenos adjudicados en los . años de 1839 and 1840."-(Book denoting the concessions of land adjudicated in the years 1839 and 1840.)
This book contains a brief entry, by the secretary of the department of grants, including their numbers, dates, names of the grantees and of the grants, quantity granted, and situation of the land, usually entered in the book in the order they were conceded. This book contains the grants made from January 18, 1839, to December 8, 1843, inclusive.
4. A book similar to the above, and containing like entries of grants issued between January 8, 1844 and December 23, 1845.
5. File of expedientes of grants-that is, all the proceedings (except of the Assembly) relating to the respective grants, secured, those of each grant in a separate parcel, and marked and labeled with its number and name. This file is marked from No. 1 to No. 579 inclusive, and embraces the space of time between May 13. 1833, to July 1846. The numbers, howeyer, bear little relation to the dates. Some numbers are missing, of some there are duplicates-that is, two distinct grants with the same number. The expedi- entes are not all complete; in some cases the final grant appears to have been refused; in others it was wanting. The collection, however, is evidently intended to represent estates which have been granted, and it is probable that in many, or most instances, the omission apparent in the archives is supplied by original documents in the hands of the parties, or by long permitted occu- pation. These embrace all the record books and files belonging to the territo- rial, or departmental archives, which I was able to discover.
I am assured, however, by Mr. J. C. Fremont, that according to the best of
178
HISTORY OF SAN MATEO COUNTY.
his recollection, a book for the year 1846, corresponding to those noticed above, extending from 1839, to the end of 1845, existed in the archives while he was Governor of California, and was with them when he delivered them in May, 1847, to the officer appointed by General Kearny to receive them from him at Monterey.
II. " CHIEFLY THE LARGE GRANTS, AS THE MISSIONS, AND WHETHER THE TITLE TO THEM BE IN ASSIGNEES, OR WHETHER THEY HAVE REVERTED, AND VESTED IN THE SOVEREIGN?"
I took much pains both in California and Mexico, to assure myself of the situation, in a legal and proprietary point of view, of the former great establishments known as the MISSIONS of California. It had been supposed that the lands they occupied were grants, held as the property of the church, or of the mission establishments as corporations. Such, however, was not the case. All the missions in Upper California were established under the direc- tion and mainly at the expense of the Government, and the missionaries there had never any other rights than the occupation and use of the lands for the purpose of the missions, and at the pleasure of the Government. This is shown by the history and principles of their foundation, by the laws in rela- tion to them, by the constant practice of the Government toward them, and, in fact, by the rules of the Franciscan order, which forbids its members to possess property.
The establishment of missions in remote provinces was a part of the colo- nial system of Spain. The Jesuits, by a license from the Viceroy of New Spain, commenced in this manner the reduction of Lower California in the year 1697. They continued in the spiritual charge, and in a considerable degree of the temporal government of that province until 1767, when the royal decree abolishing the Jesuit order throughout New Spain was there enforced, and the missions taken out of their hands. . They had then founded fifteen missions, extending from Cape St. Lucas nearly to the head of the sea of Cortez, or Californian gulf. Three of the establishments had been suppressed by order of the Viceroy; the remainder were now put in charge of the Fran- ciscan monks of the college of San Fernando, in Mexico, hence sometimes called " Fernandinos." The prefect of that college, the Rev. Father Junipero Serra, procceded in person to his new charge, and arrived with a number of monks at Loreto, the capital of the peninsula, the following year (1768). He was there, soon after, joined by Don Jose Galvez, inspector general (visitador) of New Spain, who brought an order from the King, directing the founding of one or more settlements in Upper California. It was therefore agreed that Father Junipero should extend the mission establishments into Upper Cali- fornia, under the protection of presidios (armed posts) which the government would establish at San Diego and Monterey. Two expeditions, both accom- panied by missionaries, were consequently fitted out, one to proceed by sca,
179
MEXICAN GRANTS.
the other by land, to the new territory. In June, 1769, they had arrived, and in that month founded the first mission about two leagues from the port of San Diego. A presidio was established at the same time near the port. The same year a presidio was established at Monterey, and a mission estab- lishment begun. Subsequently, the Dominican friars obtained leave from the King to take charge of a part of the missions of California, which led to an arrangement between the two societies, whereby the missions of Lower Cali- fornia were committed to the Dominicans, and the entire field of the upper province remained to the Franciscans. This arrangement was sanctioned by the political authority, and continues to the present time. The new cstab- lishments flourished and rapidly augmented their numbers, occupying first the space between San Diego and Monterey, and subsequently extending to the northward. A report from the Viceroy to the King, dated Mexico, December 27. 1793, gives the following account of the number, time of estab- lishment, and locality of the missions existing in New California at that period:
NO.
MISSIONS.
SITUATION.
WHEN FOUNDED.
1 .. San Diego de Alcala
Lat. 32° 42' July 16, 1769.
2 .. San Carlos de Monterey
36° 33' June 3, 1770.
3 .. San Antonio de Padua 36° 34' July 14, 1771.
4. . San Gabriel de los Temblores.
34° 10' September 8, 1771.
5. . San Luis Obispo .
31° 38' September 1, 1772.
6 ..
San Francisco (Dolores)
37° 56' October 9, 1776.
7 .. San Juan Capistrano
33° 30' November 1, 1776.
8 .. Santa Clara
37° 00' January 18, 1777.
9. . San Buenaventura
34° 36' March 31, 1782.
10. . "Canta Barbara.
34° 28' October 4, 1786.
11. . |Purisima Conception
35° 32' January 8, 1787.
12. . Santa Cruz
36° 58' August 28, 1791.
13 .. La Soledad
36° 38' October 9, 1791.
At first the missions nominally occupied the whole territory, except the four sinall military posts of San Diego, Santa Barbara, Monterey, and San Fran- cisco; that is, the limits of one mission were said to cover the intervening space to the limits of the next; and there were no other occupants except the wild Indians, whose reduction and conversion were the objects of the establishments. The Indians, as fast as they were reduced, were trained to labor in the mis- sions, and lived either within its walls, or in small villages near by, under the spiritual and temporal direction of the priests, but the whole under the politi- cal control of the Governor of the province, who decided contested questions of right or policy, whether between different missions, between missions and
180
HISTORY OF SAN MATEO COUNTY.
individuals, or concerning the Indians. Soon, however, grants of land began to be made to individuals, especially to retired soldiers, who received special favor in the distant colonies of Spain, and became the settlers and the founders of the country they had reduced and protected. Some settlers were also brought from the neighboring provinces of Sonora and Sinaloa, and the towns of San Jose, at the head of the Bay of San Francisco, and of Los Angeles, eight leagues from the port of San Pedro, were early founded. The governor exercised the privilege of making concessions of large tracts, and the captains of the presidios were authorized to grant builling lots, and small tracts for gardens and farms, within the distance of two leagues from the presidios. By these means, the mission tracts began respectively to have something like known boundaries; though the lands they thus occupied were still not viewed in any light as the property of the missionaries, but as the domain of the crown, appropriated to the use of the missions while the state of the country should require it, and at the pleasure of the political authority.
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.