USA > California > Alameda County > Past and present of Alameda County, California, Volume I > Part 7
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
When they arrived, there was a shanty standing but by whom it was built is not known. Early in 1850 it was in charge of a man named Hoober, a Penn- sylvania printer, but when the Pattens came it had been abandoned. The brothers also found, when they crossed the bay, Moses Chase, in ill health, attended by a
52
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
friend, living in a tent about the foot of Broadway. Chase had determined to return to the eastern states, and had come to the Contra Costa to pass his time in hunting and recuperating during the mild Californian winter, ere going back to his home in the spring. The brothers taking a liking to him induced him to join them, which he did, and was afterwards invested with the like proprietary rights as themselves. In 1851 the Pattens leased an additional 300 acres for a term of eight years. In 1850 they commenced farming, but on the extension of their territory they laid nearly the whole of their possessions under a crop consisting chiefly of barley and wheat. During the first year of their residence fifty tons of hay were cut on the site of Clinton, which netted $70 per ton, the market price being $80, but $10 of which were deducted for freight to San Francisco.
Early in the year 1851 the superior advantages of this location became known to James B. Larue, who acquired some property from Antonio Maria Peralta, and determined to found the nucleus of a town. In 1851 he took up his resi- dence in Brooklyn township, and there resided until the day of his death in 1872.
His first establishment was a tent covered with hides and stood near what is now the junction of Twelfth street and Fifteenth avenue, and here he opened a store to supply the lumbermen in the redwoods with goods. He immediately com- menced the construction of the Louis Winegard house, whither he transferred his goods from the tent, and took up his residence with his wife and his son Luke. He was joined, early in 1852, by Antonio Fonte. At that time besides the tent of Mr. Larue, a Mexican named Manuel Paracio had a corral standing at Twelfth and Fourteenth streets and Fourteenth and Sixteenth avenues, and a man named Parker had a "rum-mill" at East Twelfth street, between Fifteenth and Six- teenth avenues. This place was built some time previously by a man named Dean. A slaughter-house was here and at Twentieth street stood a large farmhouse occu- pied by Manuel Baragan, a Chileno, who farmed a large tract as far as the boundary line of Alameda township. The land to the west of Fourteenth avenue was farmed by the Patten brothers and their associate, Moses Chase. In 1851 William C. Blackwood settled among the redwoods.
But one foreigner anterior to 1849 attempted to locate permanently here. In the year 1845 James Alexander Forbes was authorized by Bezar Simons, at the time captain of the American ship Magnolia, to purchase a tract of land for him on the bay of San Francisco, and just before his departure from the port both men crossed the bay in a ship's boat to San Leandro to see if the purchase of the rancho could be effected from Estudillo, who, however, refused to sell. He declined the offer of $10,000 made by Simons, stating that he would not take double the sum, as he wanted it for his family. Subsequent to this, John B. Ward, who had married Melina Concepcion, eldest daughter of Don J. J. Estu- dillo, took up his abode in the township.
Immense numbers of wild fowl then made the sloughs and marshes their home. They brought almost fabulous prices in the first and palmiest days of San Francisco markets. Many men who occupied their time during the sum- mer months in the mines, turned their attention in winter to killing game for the city commission merchants, and many made more money in this way than they did at gold digging. It was in the search for game that the first settlers came to Eden township.
53
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
In the month of December, 1849, there crossed the bay in a whale-boat, with baggage and guns, Thomas W. Mulford and Moses Wicks, A. R. Biggs of San Francisco, E. Minor Smith and W. C. Smith. They landed on the shore in the vicinity of the Estudillo mansion, there pitched their tent and com- menced a war upon the feathered denizens of the marshes. At this date there were probably no permanent foreign settlers and no houses save those of the Spaniards mentioned above, an Indian hut where the graveyard at San Lorenzo stood and an Indian rancheria on the site later occupied by the county hospital. This party dwelt in a tent pitched on the shore, and in the spring of 1850 erected a "ten by twelve" cabin which was used as a cook-house, subsequently adding a chimney thereto of brick taken from a pile which had been thrown into the bay-the refuse of those used in the construction of the new Estudillo house. The cabin stood on the margin of the bay, but its site was later washed away by the rolling surf. In the spring of 1851 the dwelling tent gave place to a cabin, and there it remained on the original location until 1876. That win- ter another party located temporarily at the mouth of the San Leandro creek; they were Robert Smith, Stephen Smith, a Mr. Solomon, and several others. They did nothing more than hunt in the locality.
In the spring of 1850 a field of wheat, about ten acres in extent, was put in by the Senor Estudillo and some Sonorians, which gladdened the eyes of the few Americans then roaming about the district. This green oasis amid the appar- ently sterile region was at the lower end of Leweling's place near the Hayward road, where the Sonorians also had a dwelling. This was by no means the first cultivation of the cereals in Eden township, for the Spaniards sowed wheat, planted corn, and raised quantities to provide for their own house- holds. In his will Don J. J. Estudillo says: "I declare that I leave at dif- ferent places on the rancho three fields sown in barley, in company with Don Guillermo Davis-one with Mexicans, and another with Sonorians-of which contracts exist, written agreements, signed," etc. The industry of stock-rais- ing was still prosecuted with energy, there being on the Estudillo rancho alone in 1850, 3,000 head of cattle, more than that number of sheep, and fifty horses of all classes. In the month of October, 1850, Capt. William Roberts came to the township and established himself at Roberts' Landing, then known as Thompson's, whence he commenced freighting with small craft to different points along the bay. His settlement was soon after followed by that of Captain Chisholm.
In the fall of 1851 William Hayward came to the township and first located on what he thought was land belonging to the Government in Polomares cañon, but which he was quickly informed was the property of Guillermo Castro, who, however, suggested his removal farther down the valley. This he did, and early in the following year, 1852, located on A street, Hayward, and there erected the first building in the flourishing town that bears his name.
During 1852 the squatters took possession of the entire plain. What is now San Lorenzo was known as Squatterville. They found their chief attrac- tions apparently on the Estudillo rancho, for it was to that portion of the township that their attentions were principally turned. The rancho was believed to be Government land, and it was not until after years of litigation that the squatters were disabused of this belief. Among those who took possession of
54
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
part under such an idea was Franklin Ray. He erected a dwelling house in the vicinity of San Leandro and on being warned off, refused, when, on March 21, 1852, the owners of the rancho tore down the building, to recover the value of which, namely, $300, he brought suit .. This was only one of many cases of the same nature. With this great influx of people came many of those whose names are now among the most honored in the county. There were Robert S. Farrelly, William C. Blackwood, Messrs. Crane, Kennedy, McMurtry, Camp- bell, Harlan and Johnson. They were followed by Fritz Boehmer, Charles Duerr, William Field, George Meyer, Alexander Patterson, Juel Russell, and John Johnson, who all settled in the vicinity of Mount Eden, which up to that time had been entirely unoccupied. In 1852 also there are the names of Peter Olsen, John W. Jamison, Alexander Allen, and Liberty Perham. This year Eden township had its commencement. In 1856 Castro was compelled to mortgage his estate and then piece by piece the lands were brought to the hammer, and finally, in 1864, they passed entirely into the hands of Faxon D. Atherton who gave Castro $30,000 for them, with which amount he went into a self-inflicted exile in South America. Among the men who made their homes in Eden in 1853 are Henry Smyth, George S. Meyer, Tim. Hauschildt, David S. Smalley, Joseph De Mont, J. F. Elliott, John Huff, William Mahoney, E. D. Mann, Thomas W. Mulford, Moses Wicks, William Smith, E. Minor Smith and Emerson T. Crane.
From this year onward the growth and prosperity of Eden township was wonderful. In the next decade the population increased many fold. The names of those arriving in 1855 were Richard Barron, Joseph Graham, Josiah G. Bickell; in 1856 William Knox, Otis Hill, Frederick Wrede, John Wille, Con- rad Liese, Ferdinand Schultz; in 1857 W. T. Lemon; in 1858 Maas Lueders, W. H. Miller ; in 1859 Watkin W. Wynn; in 1860 N. D. Dutcher, John W. Clark ; in 1861 Frederick Brustgrun, A. P. Rose; in 1862 Duncan Sinclair. O. W. Owen, A. W. Schafer; in 1865 E. B. Renshaw and hundreds of others.
A rusty old six-pound cannon lay for years within twenty or thirty feet of the sidewalk on Washington Square, Oakland. The gun was known by the older inhabitants as the "Squatter Gun." The country for miles around was in possession of squatters at the commencement and warm times were experi- enced by them in their fight to hold their ground. The gun was purchased by the squatters from the captain of a vessel which came around the Horn, and was brought over to Oakland in 1852, to be used for giving an alarm to the occu- pants of the entire valley in the event of an attempt to forcibly eject any of the possessors of the land. It was at first proposed to procure a bell for that purpose, but the bell advocates agreed to the argument that the sound of a bell could not be heard as far as the report of a cannon, and so the squatter gun was procured.
WILLIAM HAYWARD
VIEW OF HAYWARD IN 1870
CHAPTER IV
THE WATER FRONT CONVEYANCE
There was introduced in the city council on May 17, 1852, an ordinance for the disposal of the water front belonging to the town of Oakland and for the construction of wharves, the essential part reading as follows: The exclusive right and privilege of constructing wharves, piers and docks at any points within the corporate limits of the town of Oakland, with the right of collecting wharfage and dockage at such rates as he may deem reasonable, is hereby granted and confirmed unto Horace W. Carpentier and his legal representatives for the period of thirty-seven years; provided that the said grantee or his representatives shall within six months provide a wharf at the foot of Main street, at least twenty feet wide, and extending towards deep water fifteen feet beyond the present wharf at the foot of said street; that he or they shall within one year construct a wharf at the foot of F street or G street, extend- ing out to boat channel, and also within twenty months another wharf at the foot of D street or E street; provided that two per cent of the receipts for wharfage shall be payable to the town of Oakland. With a view the more speedily to carry out the intentions and purposes of the Act of the Legislature, passed May 4, 1852, entitled An Act to incorporate the Town of Oakland, and to provide for the construction of wharves thereat, in which certain property is granted and released to the town of Oakland, to facilitate the making of certain improvements; now, therefore, in consideration of the premises herein contained, and of a certain obligation made by said Horace W. Carpentier with the town of Oakland, in which he undertakes to build for said town a public schoolhouse, the water front of said town, that is to say, the land lying within the limits of the town of Oakland between high tide and ship channel, as described in said act, together with all the right, title and interest of the town of Oakland therein is hereby sold, granted and released unto the said Horace W. Carpentier and to his assigns of legal representatives, with all the improve- ments, rights and interests thereunto belonging.
Mr. Carpentier at once entered upon his newly acquired possessions, and, in accordance with the ordinance and its provisions made a report respecting wharfage, on the 30th of December, accompanied by an affidavit that the due percentage of wharfage and dockage had been paid to the town of Oakland, up to date. On July 12, 1853, he reported in further proof of what was required from him, that "I have built a substantial, elegant and commodious schoolhouse for said town, which is now completed and ready for delivery. In the plan and construction of the building I have intended to go beyond rather than to fall short of the obligation of my contract. I would also state for the official information of the board that a free school is at present main-
55
56
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
tained at my expense in the building above referred to, which, I am happy to inform you, is well attended and promises to be the beginning of an important system of free schools. I herewith transmit to you a conveyance of the school- house together with a deed for the lots upon which it is erected; I trust that the building will meet your approval, and that the additional present of the lots will prove acceptable to your honorable body." This building stood near the corner of Fourth and Clay streets. On the 26th of August, Mr. Carpentier addressed the following communication to the board of trustees: "In pursu- ance of my contract with the town of Oakland in accepting the conveyance of its water front, I have already expended about $20,000 in wharves, besides those referred to in said contract, at a very heavy expense. Believing that the wharfage might be pleasing to some who seem to regard the wharves as at present conducted as a monopoly to be complained of, I propose to abandon the collection of wharfage, provided, the board of trustees will undertake per- petually to keep all the wharves in good order and repair. As some of my plans may be altered by your decision and as those plans would suffer from delay unless this proposal be accepted at the next meeting of the board, I shall consider it as withdrawn and void." These propositions were declined, but an ordinance was passed concerning wharves and water front, whereby, on the completion of the wharf at the foot of Main street (Broadway), and satis- factory arrangements being made in respect to the schoolhouse, etc.,-the water front of the town of Oakland would be granted to Carpentier "in fee simple forever."
About this time or a little later it began to be felt by the citizens of Oak- land that the board of trustees had exceeded their legitimate authority, that it was not in their power to sell, grant or release public property unto any individual for any consideration. They demanded from the board of trustees that legal proceedings should be instituted forthwith to recover the water front which belonged to them. This petition is not among the city records, but was presented September 10, 1853, and on the 19th the committee to whom the matter was referred made a report in writing, recommending that the prayer be not granted. This recommendation was unanimously adopted on the motion of Trustee Edson Adams.
Immediately after the signing of the deed which conveyed the water front to him, Carpentier placed himself in communication with his niece in New York, Harriet N. Carpentier, and from her received an absolute power of attorney "to purchase, rent, receive and hold property, real or personal" in the State of California, "and to sell, lease, grant, assign and convey any and all property, either which I now hold or which I may hereafter acquire in said state, using his entire discretion in the premises," under date June 14, 1852. Then, on January 18, 1853, he sold a one-fourth undivided interest of the water front to Edward R. Carpentier, who was at the time commissioner of deeds for the State of California and residing in New York, for the sum of $2,800, together with an equal one-fourth of all rights, titles and claims either present or prospective ; and, on August 2, 1854, while mayor of the city of Oakland (to which office he had been elected in the month of April of that year), he disposed of the remaining three-fourths to Harriet N. Carpentier, for the sum of $60,000. Under date April 4, 1855, Harriet N. Carpentier purchased from Edward R.
57
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
Carpentier all the "right, title, claim and interest in and to the water front of the city of Oakland, in the county of Alameda, state aforesaid, that is to say, all the lands or land and water lying within the limits of said city between high-tide mark and ships' channel, the same being the one undivided one-fourth part of the prem- ises herein before described" for the sum of $12,000; and on August 16, 1855, John B. Watson sold the entire water front property to Harriet N. Carpentier for the sum of $6,000. How the property ever passed into the hands of Mr. Watson was a matter of the profoundest mystery.
On December 5, 1853, Horace W. and Edward R. Carpentier executed a lease to Edson Adams and Andrew Moon, "for the period of twenty years, an equal, undivided two-third interest in and to the following described premises in the town of Oakland, county of Alameda, California, the same being a beach and water lot, bounded as follows: Commencing at a point in the easterly line of Broadway, protracted 420 feet southerly from the southern line of First street ; thence running easterly on a line parallel with First street 105 feet; thence run- ning northerly on a line parallel with Broadway 50 feet ; thence running westerly on a line parallel with First street 105 feet to the easterly line of Broadway con- tinued ; thence southerly along said line 50 feet to the place of beginning, being the same lot on which the storehouse erected by the said parties is now stand- ing," for the sum of $2,000. It was in this transaction that either Edson Adams or Andrew Moon appeared in the role of lessees, although it was pretty generally admitted that the former claimed one-half of the entire property, and, indeed, did eventually obtain his share by forcible measures, subsequently selling it to the Central Pacific Railroad Company for a large sum.
For these and other cogent reasons a riot of indignant citizens was threatened; therefore, on October 22, 1853, it was ordered that "circumstances appearing to endanger the destruction by riot of the town records, the clerk is authorized to remove them to a place of safety." This was done. That the exasperated mob took their revenge upon the property of Carpentier is learned from the statement of the records, for on November 19th of the same year the president laid before the board of trustees a certified copy of a summons and complaint in the case of Horace W. Carpentier versus the town of Oakland, in a suit for $4,500, damages to the plaintiff's property from a riotous assemblage, to which, on motion of Mr. Moon, the president, an answer was directed to be filed. This was ordered to be transferred, by consent, from the district court of Alameda county to the superior court of the city of San Francisco on January 18, 1854, and on the 11th of February H. P. Watkins was employed as counsel to defend the cause, but on February 18th an ordinance was passed compromising the suit. On August 5, 1854, at the meeting of the city council, Alderman A. D. Eames, presented ordinance No. 34, entitled, "An ordinance to provide for the construction and maintenance of a wharf in the city of Oakland."
The ordinance was passed at the regular meeting of the council held August 6, 1854, and on the 19th four separate petitions, signed in all by 170 citizens, were received in favor of building the wharf on the southwestern corner of the Encinal. At the same session, August 19th, the ordinance above mentioned hav- ing previously been sent to Mayor Carpentier for his signature and approval, was returned to the council without his approval.
58
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
The council, however, refused to be influenced; they therefore referred the ordinance to a special committee, consisting of Messrs. Eames, Blake and Kelsey, who were empowered to take the advice of counsel in San Francisco on the sub- ject. Having consulted the law firm of Crittenden & Ingo, these gentlemen gave their opinion-presumably in favor of the city. On September 13th, it was moved by Alderman Marier that the ordinance providing for the maintenance and construction of a wharf be taken up, and carried. This was done by the fol- lowing vote: Ayes-Aldermen Eames, Gallagher, Marier and Kelsey. Noes- Alderman Josselyn.
On October 7, 1854, a communication from the Attorney-General, having reference to the water front, was presented by Alderman Josselyn, and ordered placed on file, but this important document has also vanished from the records, as has the resolution proposed by Mr. Marier, and passed on the 21st of the same month, whereby the marshal was instructed to erase from the assessment books the impost on the water front. What pressure or suasion was brought to bear upon the council to induce them to pass the ordinance to repeal "An Ordinance to provide for the construction and maintenance of a wharf in the City of Oak- land," which had been passed finally on the previous 15th of September, will probably never be known, but the fact is that the mayor won the day and gave his approval to it (it was passed December 9, 1854) on December 11, 1854.
The special ferry committee made the following report: The ordinance which it is proposed to repeal was passed by the board of trustees of the town of Oakland, on March 5, 1853. It authorizes and directs the conveyance to E. R. Carpentier, his heirs, agents, or assigns of exclusive ferry privileges "between Oakland and San Francisco, or between the said town or any other place," for the term of twenty years, together with all the ferry rights, privileges and fran- chises which now are or may hereafter be held or owned by the town of Oakland.
The ordinance directing this conveyance to Mr. Carpentier is but one of sim- ilar ordinances by which the town of Oakland has been unlawfully despoiled of her property, divested of her rights, and retarded in her prosperity. Prior to the passage of this ordinance, the trustees of the town granted to the brother of said Carpentier all the water front of the town extending to ship channel in the Bay of San Francisco, together with the exclusive right of constructing wharves and collecting wharfage (without limit or restriction), for thirty-seven years. A mere nominal percentage, without guarantee or security to the town, and amount- ing, in the course of two or three years to about $100, is the only consideration (with the exception of a small frame schoolhouse for which no deed can be found) proffered to the town for the aforesaid grants. As trifling as this consideration is, the grantee in the latter case applied to the board of trustees, and obtained the passage of an ordinance by which the town assumes all taxes which might be levied upon any wharf or wharves which he had constructed or might here- after construct. This would render the city liable for the state and county taxes upon said wharves, which, at a moderate estimate, would amount in one year to more than the aforesaid has amounted to in two years; thus compelling the city to pay a premium to the grantees for taking all the property, ferry rights, privileges and franchises which the town of Oakland had, present or prospective, to give away. Under this arrangement the people of the town are plundered of their property, and then taxed to pay the taxes of those who have plundered them,
59
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
and to support a monopoly which adds its exactions to the measure of iniquity thus imposed upon the community.
As matters now stand, two individuals claim exclusive and entire control over the only outlet through which the farmer can gain access to the market, or the merchant transport his goods. If the grants to these individuals be valid, they can charge whatever rates of freight and wharfage they may choose to exact, and if the article transported should be thus taxed to double its value, the owner thereof could have no redress. A monopoly which so completely subjects a whole community to the caprice of an individual, cannot stand the test of the law. In the case before us, your committee would suggest that the ordinance which it is proposed to repeal is of itself null and void. To suppose that the town of Oakland has any right to establish such a ferry across the Bay of San Francisco, is about equivalent to supposing that she has a right to grant exclusive ferry privileges to the Sandwich Islands. But, however absurd the ordinance in question may be, the impression prevails to some extent that so long as said ordinance stands unrepealed, so long does the city of Oakland indorse the nefarious contract of a board of trustees who administered the town govern- ment for the especial benefit of two or three individuals, and to the detriment of the community at large. That this impression may be removed, and that any mere shadow of right on which the present ferry monopoly pretends to exist may be dissipated, and that the public may know that the door is open for unlimited competition, your committee report back the ordinance and recommend its passage, with an amendment declaring any contract made under or by virtue of said ordinance null and void.
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.