USA > California > Santa Clara County > History of Santa Clara County, California : including its geography, geology, topography, climatography and description > Part 19
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
March 4, 1874, the Board placed their construction of the allowance of mileage to the Sheriff and Constable, when proceeding to serve any process in criminal cases, or for removing a prisoner from jail to appear before a court, to be when going only. Active firemen were, April 7th, declared exempt from poll-tax, in accordance with the Act of the Legislature passed March 28, 1874, while on July 11th, the following Game Laws were ordered to be promulgated : First-every person, who, in this county, between the fifteenth day of March and the fifteenth day of September in each year, takes, kills or destroys any quail, partridges or grouse, is guilty of a mis- demeanor. Second-Every person, who, in this county, between the first day of January and the first day of July in each year, takes, kills or destroys any elk, deer or antelope, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Third-Every person
167
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.
who, in this county, at any time shall take, catch, kill, chase, pursue or destroy the male or female of any deer, with or by the help of any hounds or dogs of any species, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Fourth-Every person who, in this county, between the fifteenth day of October in each year and the first day of April in the following year, takes or catches any trout, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Fifth-Every person who takes, catches or kills any trout, by the use of nets, wires, baskets, traps, drug or any explosive agent, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Order No. 2, dated August 4, 1874, reads: First-Every person, who, shall at any time, in Santa Clara county, in any year, catch or take any quail by means of any trap or traps, snares, dead- falls or nets, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Second-Every person or persons who shall, in the County of Santa Clara, have in their possession any quail taken by means of any trap or traps, snares, dead-falls or nets, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Third-Every person or persons who shall, knowingly, have in their possession, in this county, any venison, deer or skins or pelts of any deer taken, caught or killed, between the first day of January and the first day of July of each year, shall be deemed guilty of a mis- demeanor. Fourth-Every person or persons who shall, in this county, be- tween the first day of January and the first day of July of any year, catch, kill or shall have in his or their possession any doves, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. On September 10th, Order No. 2 was amended by the striking out of the words "trap or traps" wherever they occurred. On July 24, 1876, the following section was ordered to be appended : Fifth-For the better protection of game and fish, in this county, the sum of fifty dollars reward will be paid to any person giving such information as shall lead to the conviction of any person guilty of the violation of any of the regulations made by the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara county, for the protection of game and fish, in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. April 3, 1878, Section Four was amended to read :- Every person who, in this county, takes, catches or kills any trout by the use of nets, weir-baskets, traps, drugs or any explosive agent, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Too much credit cannot be given to the Supervisors for this humane law. Where pot-hunters are plentiful, provision should be made against their carrying on an exterminating war on game. A true sportsman is as thoughtful of his prey as he is of himself, it is only the cruel and unsportsmanlike that kill for killing's sake.
July 18, 1874, the county physicians were instructed to vaccinate all parties who should apply, and charge the county for so doing when the fee shall not exceed fifty cents, the names of persons so vaccinated to be returned to the Board.
We find under date March 2, 1875, that a tax of one dollar per head on all dogs in the county was ordered to be levied, in accordance with Section
168
HISTORY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
4046, paragraph 23 of the Political Code, and that the taxes so collected would be apportioned to the School Fund. Later in the year another tax was mooted, as will be gathered from the accompanying resumé of the minutes, July 8, 1875, a move was made in the shape of a petition from the Independent Order of Good Templars to raise the license tax for the sale of liquors by retail, and to prevent the sale in premises where other goods were sold, was dismissed by the Board of Supervisors on the ground that they had no jurisdiction. During the remainder of the year, 1875, nothing further of moment transpired except the action taken preliminary to the acceptance of the Lick Observatory, a history of which in a connected form will be found in these pages.
In June, 1876, the request for assistance from the Ladies' Benevolent Society of San José for maintaining an Orphan Asylum in that city was granted; and on the 5th of the same month the fiat went forth that no remuneration would be allowed to officers, except the Sheriff, for work per- formed on the Sabbath Day. August 9, 1877, permission was granted to " The Bar Association of San Jose " to meet every Tuesday evening in the court-room, while, December 4th, the rather startling proposition of E. J. Muybridge to photograph the records, instead of having them recopied by hand, was favorably considered by the Board.
Early in the year 1878, January 8th, a resolution was introduced by Supervisor Rogers, to the effect that the Member of Assembly from Santa Clara county be requested to procure the passage of a law authorizing the Board of Supervisors to advertise for proposals to let out such county roads for which there is no adequate fund wherewith to keep them in repair, to the lowest bidder proposing to keep such in condition for the least amount of toll, or, that the Board of Supervisors may do so upon being petitioned by the people living in the vicinity of such road. And now comes a very necessary order, which should effectually put a stop to the voracity of those " clothed with a little brief authority." It was directed, May 8th of the same year, that " the practice of hunting up trivial cases of misdemeanors, or slight infractions of the law by some Justices of the Peace and Constables in the county, and issuing papers whereby the county is put to great expense and no good results obtained, is condemned in the strongest terms by this Board as an outrage upon the tax-payers of the county. It is the opinion of this Board that the Justices should in all such cases render judgment against the parties moving such actions for all costs incurred ; and it is further ordered that no claims against the county for services of this character shall be allowed by this Board."
We now come to the greatest political act of late years, namely, the order for a new Constitution, and its passage by an immense majority throughout the State.
169
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.
It was found that the provisions in regard to taxation and property were of too vague a nature to be allowed to hold at this period of progress. At the time when the old Constitution was framed at Monterey, it was never contemplated that the State would be ever anything but a purely mining country; and as each mining section had its own local laws, more distinct terms in regard to what was legally meant by property and taxable property were not thought to be necessary. At last a day came when a decision of the Supreme Court ruled that credits are not property in the sense in which the word property is used in Section 13 of Article XI. of the Constitution, and cannot be assessed for taxes, or taxed as property, even if secured by mortgage. (The People vs. Hibernian Bank, Cal. Reports, 51.) The popular voice became clamorous on this decision for a change of rule; and though having been before mooted, and successfully balked by former sessions of the Legislature, an Act to provide for a convention to frame a new Consti- tution for the State of California was approved March 30, 1878; and by a proclamation of the Governor an election throughout the State was ordered to be held June 19, 1878, for the purpose of electing delegates to a Constitu- tional Convention, to meet at Sacramento on September 28th. Thirty-two delegates were to be elected by the State at large, of whom not more than eight should be residents of any one Congressional district. The Convention duly met at the State Capital, and after much labor framed the New Constitution. The election for the adoption or rejection caused a deep-seated feeling through- out the length and breadth of our land, and for months the country was in a perfect ferment; at last the 7th of May arrived; the following morning the news was flashed from west to east and south to north of the adoption of California's new organic law. The votes in Santa Clara county, under this head, were: September 5, 1877-For Constitutional Convention, 1,212; against holding such, 1,210. June 19, 1878-For Delegates to Constitu- tional Convention, T. H. Laine (Non-partisan and Young Men), 2,186; R. McComas (Non-partisan and Young Men), 2,183; E. O. Smith (Non-partisan and Young Men), 2,238; A. Greeninger (Non-partisan), 1,647; J. G. Kennedy (Young Men), 771; J. E. Clark (Workingmen), 1,635; J. Carrick (Work- ingmen), 1,627; D. W. Herrington (Workingmen and Young Men), 1,949; J. A. Moultrie (Workingmen), 1,563; H. W. Kelly (Workingmen), 1,591 ; C. VanBuren (Independent),66; Jacob Hanna (Independent), 47; Filmore, 17. The total vote cast in the county was 3,821. Of the above Messrs. Laine, McComas, Smith, Herrington, and Weller served. P. B. Tully was elected delegate at large. May 7, 1879-For the New Constitution, 2,500; against the New Constitution, 3,261; majority in Santa Clara county against the New Constitution, 761.
Let us now resume the thread of our excerpts from the Record Books. July 8, 1878, an order was made in reference to applications from boys
170
HISTORY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
wishing to be admitted to the training ship Jamestown, the first to make such being Frank Marmolejo. September 4th, steps were taken to prevent the spread of glanders, which fatal disease had made its appearance among the horses in the county; and on November 5th, directions were given for the construction of a jail in Los Gatos.
The new year, 1879, appropriately opens with the following tribute to the county officers, at the hands of H. Philip, who was appointed by the Finance Committee of the Supervisors as expert to examine into the official affairs of the different departments, in accordance with an order of the Board dated October 9, 1878 :-
" To the Honorable Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County-
" Gentlemen: At your request I have examined and compared the several accounts of the officers of Santa Clara county, as appears by their books and reported by them to the County Auditor, and by him attested, and find them in due form and correct, the proceeds thereof paid into the county treasury, and the several amounts receipted for by the Treasurer, as the law directs. The yearly ' deficit ' in the salary fund account is more apparent than real, as much work is done by the several officials without charge to the county, more than enough to make good the amount required from the Cur- rent Expense Fund to meet the deficiency. I also find the books kept in the plainest manner, and subject to the inspection of all whom it may concern, making the present investigation an easy and pleasant task. And I feel it but justice to state, as the result of this investigation, that the citizens of Santa Clara county may rest assured that their interests are honestly admin- istered by their chosen agents now occupying official position in this county; and it is my pleasure to return thanks to the several officials and their dep- uties for kindly aid in the discharge of these duties.
" Yours truly,
" San José, December 14, 1878."
HENRY PHILIP.
The taxes on completion of the third decade were established October 6, 1879, and are as follows: For State purposes, an ad valorem tax of sixty- two and one-half cents; for School Fund, fourteen cents; Infirmary Fund, ten cents; Road Fund, twenty-seven and one-half cents; Current Expenses Fund, twenty cents; Western Pacific Railway Interest Fund, three and one-half cents; Redemption Fund October-April 1, 1872, eight cents ; Redemption Fund, March 27, 1876, four and one-half cents.
Conventions .- The first record of a nominating convention that we have been able to trace is that of the Democratic party, which met at the Metho- dist church, August 6, 1853, under the Presidency of Dr. A. J. Spencer, with John M. Murphy and Samuel Morrison, Secretaries. In 1854, the Demo- cratic convention convened at the office of the Mayor, July Ist, Chairman,
171
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.
Thomas J. West; Secretary, P. K. Woodside. The Whig convention held their meeting at the Methodist Episcopal church, on July 15th, the Chair- man being Coleman Younger, and Secretary, Frederic Hall, the author of " The History of San Jose." In 1855, the American or Know-nothing party held no convention, but nominated its candidates by primary. The Demo- cratic convention met at the City Hall, August 4th, John M. Lent in the Chair, and L. C. Everett, Secretary. 1856, Democratic convention met at the City Hall, October 2d, under the Presidency of L. Archer; and that of the Republi- can convened at the same place, October 8th, when the Republican party was organized in Santa Clara county, the Chairman on the occasion being J. H. Morgan; Vice-Presidents, M. Sawyer and A. C. Erkson; Secretaries, C. G. Thomas and R. Hutchinson. In 1857, again the Republicans met at the City Hall, August 8th, Chairman, A. James Jackson; Secretary, Isaac Foster. The Democratic convention convened at the City Hall on June 25th, William H. Lent, Chairman: Secretary, S. O. Houghton. In 1858, the Democratic convention was held July 3d, the Chairman being W. B. Thomburg ; Secre- tary, J. A. Owen. The Anti-Lecompton convention (Douglas-Democrat) held at the City Hall, July 31st, Chairman, William M. Lent; Secre- tary, Freeman Gates. The Republicans met at the City Hall, August 1st. During the campaign the American and Republican parties fused. In 1859, the Republican convention met July 23d, Chairman, A. C. Erk- son ; Secretary, Dwight Burnett ; and the Democratic at the City Hall June 15th, Chairman, William Daniels; Secretary, G. George. In 1860, August 16th, the Democrats met in the City Hall, under the Chairmanship of Mayor Bradley, with J. W. Owen, Secretary; while the Republicans held at the same place June 16th, Davis Divine, Chairman, and R. Hutchinson, Secretary. In 1861, the Democratic convention (Douglas-Democrat) met June 15th, but the names of their officers are not recorded. The Republicans held at the City Hall, August 13th, Chairman, Charles Maclay ; Secretary. J. M. Seidell; while the Democrats met in San José the 15th June, with Charles E. Allen, Chairman, and J. V. Tisdall, Secretary. In 1862, the Union county convention met in San José June 14th; Chairman, C. P. Hester; Sec- retary, Tyler Beach. In 1863, June 14th, the Republican county convention met in San José under the Presidency of Davis Divine, with J. J. Owen as Secretary; while the Democratic county convention convened at the City Hall, June 27th, Chairman, Captain Simonds ; Secretary, James R. Lowe, Jr. In 1864, the Union county convention met at the City Hall, August 13th; Chairman, Charles Maclay ; Secretary, J. M. Seidell. In 1865, August 8th, the Republicans convened at the City Hall, with J. A. Quimby in the Chair, and Charles Fergusson, Secretary ; and the Independents at the same place on the 12th of the month, Chairman, John Cook ; Secretary, William Hester. For 1866 there is no record. In 1867, the Republican convention met in the
172
HISTORY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
City Hall, July 22d, Chairman, J. G. Barney; Secretary, Charles Silent; while the convention of the Democrats came together July 27th, at the City Hall, with W. Z. Angney in the Chair, and Joseph R. Johnson, Secretary. In 1868, the two parties met at the City Hall on April 25th and August Ist respectively, the Democrats being under the Presidency of W. W. McCoy, with John M. Keith, Secretary; and for the Republicans, S. O. Houghton and E. A. Clark filling the like offices. In 1869, the Republicans nominated county officers by primaries held June 26th; while the Democratic conven- tion met at the City Hall, July 27th, Chairman, N. B. Edwards ; Secretary, Z. W. Christopher. There is no record for 1870. In 1871, the Democratic convention held at the Opera House in San José, July 15th, Chairman, John M. Murphy; Secretaries, L. B. Fine and E. Rayner ; and the Republicans in the same building, June 26th, under the Chairmanship of H. W. Briggs, and T. C. Winchell and W. H. Clipperton, Secretaries. In 1872, the Republican convention held at the Opera House, April 13th, and the Democratic on June 17th, Chairman, T. C. Bodley; Secretary, E. Rayner. In 1873 the Dem- ocratic convention met in the Opera House, August 7th, under the Pres- idency of A. H. Parker; Secretaries, John M. Littlefield and J. V. Tisdall ; the Republicans, July 26th, W. W. Hoover in the Chair, Edgar Pome- roy, Secretary; and the Independents, August 9th, Chairman, C. P. Hester ; Alexander P. Murgotten, Secretary. No record in 1874. In 1875 the Convention of the Democratic party convened June 26th, in the Music Hall, William A. January, Chairman ; Secretary, W. B. Hardy; the Repub- licans at Central Hall, July 3d, under the Presidency of William Erkson; Secretary, D. C. Bailey, when a county ticket only was nominated. They then adjourned until August 4th, to nominate candidates for the Senate and Assembly. The Independent convention met this year, July 31st, at the Opera House, with Davis Divine in the Chair, and Billy Kiddy and Thomas Oakes, Secretaries. In 1876, Republican convention met at the Opera House, April 22d; Chairman, A. B. Rowley; Secretary, D. C. Vestal; and the Democrats at the same place, May 20th, under the Chairmanship of L. Archer, and J. V. Tisdall, Secretary. In 1877, the two great parties met at the Music Hall on July 21st and 24th, respectively, the Democrats being under the Presidency of J. G. Kennedy, and F. H. Nicholson, Secretary ; the Repub- licans having W. H. Rogers in the chair, with W. W. Hoover, Secretary. In 1878 no Republican convention was held. The Non-partisans nominated their candidates by petition, and the Workingmen's candidates were selected by the clubs.
County Vote .- We now purpose laying before the reader in consecutive form the Presidential and total vote of the county since the year 1852: In that year the poll was for Pierce and King (Democratic), 829; Scott and Graham (Whig), 782. Total vote 1,611 .- 1853, total vote, 1,794 .- 1854
173
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.
total vote, 1,879 .- 1855, total vote, 2,129 .- 1856, Presidential vote Buchanan and Breekinridge (Democratic), 809; Fremont and Dayton (Republican), 576; Bell and Everett (American). 673. Total vote, 2064 .- 1857, total vote, 2,289 .- 1858, total vote, 1,717 .- 1859, total vote, 2,45S .-- 1860, Presidential vote, Douglas and Johnson, 881; Lincoln and Hamlin, 1,465; Breckinridge and Lane, 722; Bell and Everett, 110. Total vote, 3,202 .- 1861, total vote, 3,447 .- 1862, total vote, 3,173 .- 1863, total vote, 3,559 .- 1864, Presidential vote, Lincoln and Johnson, 1,930; Mcclellan and Pendleton, 1,202. Total vote, 3,132 .- 1865, total vote, 1,886 .- 1867, total vote, 3,878 .- 186S, Presidential vote, Grant and Colfax, 2,307; Seymour and Blair, 2.330. Total vote, 4,637 .- 1869, total vote, 4,082 .- 1871, total vote, 5,217 .- 1872, Presidential vote, Grant and Wilson, 2,219; Greeley and Brown, 1,670. Total vote, 3,895 .- 1873, total vote, 4,207 .- 1875, total vote, 5,084 .- 1876, Presidential vote, Hays and Wheeler, 3,336; Tilden and Hendricks, 3,065 ; Peter Cooper. 1. Total vote, 6,402 .- 1877, total vote, 5,827 .- 1878, total vote, 3,821. 1879, total vote, 6045 .- 1880, Presidential vote, for Garfield (Republican), 3116 ; Hancock (Democratie), 2820; Weaver (Greenback), 107. Total vote 6041.
For further particulars under this head, the most full information will be gleaned from the exhaustive table at the conclusion of this work, the whole of which, as well as other matter in regard to convention meetings and electoral votes, has been collected from a "Hand-book of Political Sta- tisties of Santa Clara County," by H. S. Foote, by whose kindness we are enabled to give these matters in detail.
174
HISTORY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
MEXICAN GRANTS.
RANCHO RINCONADA DEL ARROYO DE FRANCISQUITO-RANCHO LAS UVAS-RANCHO LA POLKA- RANCHO SAN FRANCISQUITO-RANCHO SAN ANTONIO-RANCHO RINCOÑADA DE LOS GATOS- RANCHO LOS COCHES-RANCHO LA PURISIMA CONCEPCION-RANCHO SOLIS-RANCHO LAS ANIMAS-RANCHO SANTA TERESA-RANCHO QUITO-RANCHO LOS CAPITANCILLOS-JAMES ENRIGHT'S CLAIM-MARY S. BENNETT'S CLAIM-RANCHO CAÑADA DE CORTE MADERA- SANTA CLARA ORCHARD-LIST OF LAND CLAIMS.
IN glancing at the heading of this chapter, we must ask the reader not to indulge in the vain hope that a full history of the grants comprised within the confines of what is known as Santa Clara county will be found; such, indeed, would be beyond the limits of this work, even had we at hand the infinity of resources to be found in the hundreds of cases which have arisen out of them. Our compilation must, of necessity, be accepted in its crude form. . We have striven to our utmost capacity to produce some information which would combine both usefulness and accuracy, and to this end have relied on the " Reports of Land Cases Determined in the United States Dis- trict Court for the Northern District of California, June Term, 1853, to June Term. 1858, Inclusive, by Ogden Hoffman, District Judge "-a work which is now nearly out of print.
The first case having interest to the citizens of Santa Clara county is :--
MARIA ANTONIA MESA, claiming the Rancho Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito, Appellant, vs. THE UNITED STATES.
The objection by the Board to the confirmation of this claim obviated by the additional testimony taken in this Court.
Claim for about half a league of land in Santa Clara county, rejected by the Board, and appealed by the claimant.
This case has been submitted to the Court without argument; we are referred, however, by the District Attorney, to the opinion of the Board of Commissioners for a statement of the objections to the validity of the claim, on which he relies. The ground on which the claim was rejected by the Board was, that there was no description of the granted land, either in the grant itself, or the map which accompanies it, sufficient to designate it and effect its segregation from the public domain, or rather from the adjoining mission lands, out of which it was to be taken. The land is described in the grant as the land known as the Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito, and bordering on the land of the Pulgas, belonging to Doña Soledad Ortega, and on the land of the establishment of Santa Clara. By
175
MEXICAN GRANTS.
reference to the map, the course of the Arroyo San Francisquito, which is the southern boundary of the Pulgas land, appears clearly laid down. The northern boundary of the land intended to be granted is thus ascertained, but the claim was rejected by the Board because "there are no other indica- tions or lines on the map to show the size, the shape, or the location of the tract," the only information conveyed by the map being that the land starts from somewhere on that creek, but on what portion of it, or to what extent, does not appear.
It is unnecessary to inquire how far the legal principle upon which the decision of the Board is founded is affected by the case of Fremont vs. The United States.
From additional testimony of Aaron Van Dorn, taken in this court, it appears that as a Deputy United States Surveyor, he has surveyed the adjoining ranchos, and is acquainted with the surrounding country, and that there is no difficulty whatever in locating the land by means of the calls in the grant and the map. This witness testifies that the principal objects mentioned for boundaries are natural objects, well known and defined; that those objects exist to the witness' own knowledge, and that while mak- ing a survey of the adjoining ranchos, a certified copy of the map in this case constituted a part of his instructions from the Surveyor-General. The objection therefore raised by the Board to the claim would seem to be entirely obviated by this testimony. In confirmation of this evidence, it may be observed that the tract of land solicited appears from the documents in the expediente to have been well known to the Governor, and by those officers whom he directed to report upon the application.
The petition asks for a piece of land adjacent to the lower part of San Francisquito creek on the south, the situation of which forms a corner, as will appear by the map; said location is bordering on the Pulgas rancho, and its extent is probably half a square league. The petitioner further states that about two years before, he had obtained permission to occupy this land from the administrador of Santa Clara. The officers to whom reference for information is had, report that the Jand solicited is known to belong to the mission of Santa Clara, and that, as the map shows, part of it belongs to the widow Soledad Ortega.
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.