Sonoma County History

THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF SONOMA COUNTY.

Owing to the absence of the archives the early history of Sonoma County is enveloped in considerable darkness.

Prior to the acquisition of California by the Government of the United States, the large District of Sonoma, which included all the territory between the Sacramento river and the ocean, and Oregon and the Bay of San Francisco, was under the rule of the Mexican Government, and was divided into Prefectures, amenable to a Grand Council at Sonoma, the holders of office being designated by the Spanish name of Alcalde.

The first civil officer, we are told by Mr. R. A. Thompson, was John Nash, who was commissioned by General Kearny as Alcalde of Sonoma. He had a most exalted idea of the dignity of his office; assumed ministerial as well as judicial powers; signed himself "Chief Justice of California," and having been removed by the Military Governor, he refused to recognize the authority and held on to the office. Lieutenant Sherman - now General Sherman - captured him and took him before Governor Mason, at Monterey, who reprimanded and released him. This first civil officer of Sonoma - "Chief Justice Nash" as he called himself, and "Squire Nash" as his neighbors called him - was a good natured, illiterate but honest man. When the rumors of gold reached Sonoma, Squire Nash was employed by a number of persons to go to the mines, take observations and report. This was in 1848; he returned with gold dust to the value of eight hundred and thirty seven dollars. He then went to Mormon Island with a party of Sonoma Miners, and died there that winter. He was succeeded in his office by Lilburn W. Boggs, Ex-Governor of Missouri, a man eminently capable of exercising the functions belonging to that position.

Between the years 1846 and 1849 the county remained under the control of the military. Let us see what was the state of the political horizon during that time. According to Tuthill - as to civil law, the country was utterly at sea. It had a governor in the person of the commandant of the military district it belonged to, but no government. While the war lasted California, as a conquered province, expected to be governed by military officers who, by virtue of their command of the Department, bore sway over all the territory that their Department embraced. But after peace had come and the succession of military governors was not abated, a people who had been in the habit of governing themselves, under the same flag and the same constitution, chafed that a simple change of longitude should deprive them of their inalienable rights.

General Persefer F. Smith, who assumed command on arriving by the California, the first steamship that reached San Francisco (February 28, 1849), and General Riley, who succeeded him (April 13, 1849), would have been acceptable governors enough, if the people could have discovered any where in the Constitution that the President had power to govern a territory by a simple order to the commandant of a military department. The power was obvious in time of war, but in peace it was unprecedented. Left entirely to themselves, the people could have organized a squatter sovereignty, as Oregon had done, and the way into the sisterhood of States was clear.

They felt that they had cause for complaint, but in truth they were the too busy to nurse their grievance and make much of it. To some extent they formed local governments, and had unimportant collisions with the military. But, busy as they were, and expecting to return home soon, they humored their contempt for politics, and left public matters to be shaped at Washington. Nor was this so unwise a course under the circumstances, for the thing that had hindered Congress from giving them a legitimate constitutional government was the ever-present snag in the current of American political history, the author of most of our woes, the great mother of mischief on the western continent - slavery.

When it was found that Congress had adjourned without doing anything for California, Brigadier General Riley, by the advice, he said, of the President and Secretaries of State and of War, issued a proclamation, which was at once a call for a Convention, and an official exposition of the Administration's theory of the anomalous relations of California and the Union. He strove to rectify the impression that California was Governed by the military arm of the service; that had ceased with the termination of hostilities. What remained was the civil government, recognized by the existing laws of California. These were vested in the commanding military officer of the department, a Secretary, a departmental or Territorial Constitution, which, if acquiesced in by the people, would be submitted to Congress for approval.

In June 1849, a proclamation was issued announcing an election to be held on the 1st of August, to appoint delegates to a general convention to form a State Constitution, and for filling the offices of Judge of the Superior Court, prefects, sub-prefects, and First Alcalde or Judge of the first instance, such appointments to be made by General Riley after being voted for. The delegates elected to the Convention from Sonoma were General Vallejo, Joel Walker, R. Semple. L. W. Boggs was elected but did not attend.

The manifesto calling the Constitutional Convention divided the electoral divisions of the State into ten districts; each male inhabitant of the county, of twenty-one years of age, could vote in the district of his residence, and the delegates so elected were called upon to meet at Monterey, on September 1, 1849. The number of delegates was fixed at thirty-seven, five of which were appointed to San Francisco.

As was resolved, the Convention met at Monterey on the date above named, Robert Semple of Benicia, one of the delegates from the district of Sonoma, being chosen president. The session lasted six weeks; and, notwithstanding an awkward scarcity of books of reference and other necessary aids, much labor was performed, while the debates exhibited a marked degree of ability. In framing the original Constitution of California, slavery was forever prohibited within the jurisdiction of the State; the boundary question between Mexico and the United States was set at rest; provision for the morals and education of the people was made; a Seal of State was adopted with the motto Eureka, and many other matters discussed.

In August General Riley issued commissions to Stephen Cooper, appointing him Judge of First District, and C. P. Wilkins Prefect of the district of Sonoma, while one of General Riley's last appointments before the adoption of the Constitution, was that of Richard A. Maupin, well remembered among Sonoma's old resident's, to be Judge of the Superior Tribunal, in place of Lewis Dent, resigned. Another well known pioneer who was at the Convention from Sacramento County was Major Jacob R. Snyder, a resident of Sonoma until his death.

We find that the "Superior Tribunal of California" existed at Monterey in 1849; for, in September of that year a "Tariff of fees for Judiciary Officers" was published, with the following order of the Court: "That the several officers mentioned in this order shall be entitled to receive for their services, in addition to their regular salary, if any, the following fees, and services, in addition to their regular salary, if any, the following fees, and none others, until the further order of this Court." Here is added a list of the fees to be appropriated by Judges of the First Instance, Alcaldes, and Justices of the Peace, clerks of several courts, Sheriff or Comisario, District Attorney, and Notaries Public.

We have already said that Stephen Cooper was appointed Judge of First Instance for the District of Sonoma. He commenced his labors in that office in October, 1849, as appears, in the early record of the proceedings of that Court extant in the office of the County Clerk of Solano County. The record of one of the cases tried before Judge Cooper is reproduced as an instance of the quick justice that obtained in 1849: -

"The people of California Territory vs. George Palmer - And now comes the said people by right their attorney, and the said defendant by Semple and O'Melveny, and the prisoner having been arraigned on the indictment in this cause, plead not guilty. Thereupon a jury was chosen, selected and sworn, when, after hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, returned into Court the following verdict, to wit:

"The jury, in the case of Palmer, defendant, and the State of California, plaintiff, have found a verdict of guilty on both counts of the indictment, and sentenced him to receive the following punishment, to wit:

"On Saturday, the 24th day of November, to be conducted by the Sheriff to some public place, and there receive on his bare back seventy-five lashes, with such a weapon as the Sheriff may deem fit, on each count respectively, and to be banished from the district of Sonoma within twelve hours after whipping, under the penalty of receiving the same number of lashes for each and every day he remains in the district after the first whipping.

"(Signed) ALEXANDER RIDDELL, Foreman.

"It is therefore ordered by the Court, in accordance with the above verdict, that the foregoing sentence be carried into effect."

The Constitution was duly framed, submitted to the people, and at the election held in the 13th November, ratified by them, and adopted by a vote of twelve thousand and sixty-four for it and eleven against it; there being, besides, over twelve hundred ballots that were treated as blanks, because of informality in the printing.

We here reproduce two of the tickets which were voted at the time, and were distributed in and around Sacramento and the upper portion of the State: -

PEOPLE'S TICKET PEOPLE'S TICKET

___________________ ______________________

FOR THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE CONSTITUTION

____________ __________

FOR GOVERNOR FOR GOVERNOR

JOHN A. SUTTER PETER H. BURNETT

FOR Lieutenant Governor FOR Lieutenant Governor

JOHN McDOUGAL JOHN McDOUGAL

FOR Representatives in Congress FOR Representatives in Congress

WILLIAM E. SHANNON EDWARD GILBERT

PET. HALSTED GEORGE W. WRIGHT

FOR State Senators FOR State Senators

JOHN BIDWELL, Upper Sacramento JOHN BIDWELL, Upper Sacramento

MURRAY MORRISON, Sacramento City MURRAY MORRISON, Sacramento City

HARDING BIGELOW, Sacramento City HARDING BIGELOW , Sacramento City

GILBERT A. GRANT, Vernon GILBERT A. GRANT, Vernon

FOR Assembly FOR Assembly

H. C. CARDWELL, Sacramento City H. C. CARDWELL, Sacramento City

P. B. CORNWALL, Sacramento City P. B. CORNWALL, Sacramento City

JOHN S. FOWLER, Sacramento City JOHN S. FOWLER, Sacramento City

J. SHERWOOD. H. S. LORD, Upper Sacramento

ELISHA W. McKINSTRY, MADISON WALTHAM, Coloma

MADISON WALTHAM, Coloma W. B. DICKENSON, Yuba

W. B. DICKENSON, Yuba JAMES QUEEN, South Fork

JAMES QUEEN, South Fork ARBA K. BERRY, Weaverville

W. L. JENKIN, Weaverville

The result of the election was: Peter H. Burnett, Governor; John McDougal, Lieutenant - Governor; and Edward Gilbert and George W. Wright sent to Congress. The District of Sonoma polled at this election but five hundred and fifty-two votes, four hundred and twenty-four of which were for Burnett. Of the representatives sent from Sonoma, General Vallejo went to the Senate, and J. S. Bradford and J. E. Brackett to the Assembly. Some difficulty would appear to have arisen at this election, for M. R. A. Thompson says: "General Vallejo's seat was first given to James Spect, but on the 22d December, the committee reported that the official return from Larkin's Ranch gave Spect but two votes instead of twenty-eight, a total of but one hundred and eighty-one votes against General Vallejo's one hundred and ninety-nine." Mr. Spect then gave up his seat to General Vallejo.

We now produce the following interesting record of some of those who formed the first California Legislature, not because it bears specially on our subject, but as a matter of curiosity, interest and reference:

The following is from the Colusa Sun of April 26th: -

Hon. John S. Bradford, of Springfield, Ill., who was a member of the first California Legislature, procured from some of his colleagues a short biographical sketch. Thinking it might be a matter of interest to the people of California at the present time, he sends it to us. We have the original document, with the sketches in the handwriting of each member. Most of these gentlemen have figured conspicuously in the history of the State since, but we believe there are but few now living. Three of the sketches, Jose M. Covarrubias, M. G. Vallejo, and Pablo de la Guerra, are written in Spanish, but we have had them translated.

Senators. - David F. Douglas - Born in Sumner County, Tennessee, the 8th of January, 1821. Went to Arkansas with Fulton, in 1836. On 17th March 1839, had a fight with Dr. William Howell, in which H. was killed; imprisoned 14 months; returned home in 1842; immigrated to Mississippi; engaged in the Choctaw speculation; moved with the Choctaws west as a clerk; left there for Texas in winter 1845-46. War broke out; joined Hay's regiment; from Mexico immigrated to California, and arrived here as wagoner in December, 1848. ----------- M. G. Vallejo - Born in Monterey, Upper California, July 7th, 1807. On the first of January, 1825, he commenced his military career in the capacity of cadet. He served successfully in the capacity of Lieutenant, Captain of Cavalry, Lieutenant-Colonel, and General Commandant of Upper California. In 1835 he went to Sonoma County and founded the town of Sonoma, giving land for the same. He was a member of Convention in 1849 and Senator in 1850. ------------- Elcan Heydenfelt - Born in Charleston, South Carolina, September 15, 1821; immigrated to Alabama in 1841; from thence to Louisiana in 1844; to California in 1849. Lawyer by profession. -----------------Pablo de la Guerra - Born in Santa Barbara, Upper California, November 29, 1819. At the age of nineteen he entered the public service. He was appointed Administrator-General "de las rentas," which position he held when California was taken by the American forces. From that time he lived a private life until he was named a member of the Convention which framed the Constitution of the State. Represents the District of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo in the Senate. --------------- S. E. Woodworth - Born in the city of New York, November 15, 1815; commenced career as a sailor, A. D. 1832. Sailed from New York March 9, 1834. Entered the Navy of the United States June 14, 1838. Immigrated to California, via Rocky Mountains and Oregon, April 1, 1846. Resignation accepted by Navy Department, October 29, 1849. Elected to represent the District of Monterey in the first Senate of the First Legislature of California for the term of two years. ----------------- Thomas L. Vermule - Born in New Jersey on the 11th of June, 1814; immigrated to California November 12, 1846. Did represent San Joaquin District in the Senate. Resigned. ------------ W. D. Fair - Senator from the San Joaquin District, California; native of Virginia; immigrated to California from Mississippi in February, 1849, as "President of the Mississippi Rangers;" settled in Stockton, San Joaquin District, as an attorney at law. ------------- Elisha O. Crosby - Senator from Sacramento District; born in Washington D. C., February 4, 1818; immigrated from New York December 25, 1848; aged 34. ------------- D. C. Broderick - Senator from San Francisco; born in Washington D. C., February 4, 1818; immigrated from Washington to New York City, March, 1824; left New York for California, April 17, 1849. ---------------- E. Kirby Chamberlain, M.D. - President pro tem. of the Senate, from the District of San Diego; born in Litchfield county, Connecticut, April 24, 1805; immigrated from Connecticut to Onondaga County, New York in 1815; thence to Beaver, Penn., in 1829; thence to Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1842; served as Surgeon in the U.S.A. during the war with Mexico; appointed Surgeon to the Boundary Line Commission, February 10, 1840; embarked from Cincinnati, Ohio, February 15; arrived in San Diego, June 1, 1849, and in San Jose, December 12, 1849. ---------------- J. Bidwell. - Born in Chatauque County, N. Y., 5th of August, 1819; immigrated to Pennsylvania; thence to Ohio; thence to Missouri; thence in 1841 to California; term in Senate one year. ----------- H. C. Robinson - Senator from Sacramento; elected November 15, 1849; born in the State of Connecticut; immigrated at an early age to Louisiana; educated as a lawyer, but engaged in commercial pursuits; arrived at San Francisco, February, 1849, per steamer "California," the first that ever entered said port. ------------------ Benjamin S. Lippincott - Senator from San Joaquin; born in New York; immigrated February, 1846, from New Jersey; by pursuit a merchant, and elected two years.

Assemblymen. - Elam Brown - Born in the State of New York, in 1797; emigrated from Massachusetts in 1805; to Illinois in 1818; to Missouri, 1837; and from Platte County, in Missouri, 1846, to California. ------------------- J. S. K. Ogier - Born in Charleston, South Carolina; immigrated to New Orleans, 1845, and from there to California, December 18, 1848. ---------------- E. B. Bateman M.D. - Emigrated from Missouri, April, 1847; residence, Stockton, Alta California. ---------------------- Edmund Randolph - Born in Richmond, Virginia; immigrated to New Orleans, 1843; thence to California, 1849; residence, San Francisco. ---------------------------- E. P. Baldwin - Born in Alabama; emigrated from thence in January, 1849; arrived in California, May 1, 1850; represents San Joaquin District; resides in Sonora, Tuolumne County. ------------------- A. P. Crittenden - Born in Lexington, Ky.; educated in Ohio, Alabama, New York, and Pennsylvania; settled in Texas in 1839; came to California in 1849; represents the county of Los Angeles. ------------- Alfred Wheeler - Born in the city of New York, the 30th day of April, 1820; resided in New York City until the 21st of May, 1849, when he left for California. Citizen and resident of San Francisco, which district he represents. ------------------ James A. Gray, Philadelphia - Monterey, California; immigrated in 1846 in the first New York Regiment of Volunteers; ------------ Joseph Aram - Native of State of New York; immigrated to California, 1846; present residence, San Jose, Santa Clara County. ------------------- Joseph C. Morehead - Born in Kentucky; immigrated to California in 1846; resides at present in the county of Calaveras, San Joaquin District. ----------------- Benjamin Cory M.D. - Born November 12, 1822; immigrated to the Golden State in 1847; residence in the valley of San Jose. ----------------- Thos. J. Henley - Born in Indiana; family now reside in Charlestown, in that State; immigrated to California in 1849, through the South Pass; residence at Sacramento. ------------- Jose M. Covarrubias - Native of France; came to California in 1834; residence in Santa Barbara, and Representative for that District. ------------------ Elisha W. McKinstry - Born in Detroit, Michigan; immigrated to California in March, 1849; residence in Sacramento District, city of Sutter. ------------------- George B. Tingley - Born August 15, 1815, Clermont County, Ohio; immigrated to Rushville, Indiana, November 4, 1834; started to California April 4, 1849; reached there October 16th; was elected to the Assembly November 13th, from Sacramento district; is now in Pueblo de San Jose. --------------- Mr. Bradford, himself, represented our (Sonoma) district in the Assembly.

On Saturday, December 15, 1849, the first State Legislature met at San Jose, E. Kirby Chamberlain being elected President pro tem. of the Senate, and Thomas J. White, Speaker of the Assembly.

In the year 1850, Senator M. G. Vallejo became convinced that the capital of California should be established at a place which he desired to name Eureka, but which his colleagues, out of compliment to himself, suggested should be named Vallejo. To this end the General addressed a memorial to the Senate, dated April 3, 1850, wherein he graphically pointed out the advantages possessed by the proposed site over other places which claimed the honor. In this remarkable document, remarkable alike for its generosity of purpose as for its marvelous foresight, he proposed to grant twenty acres to the State, free of cost, for a State Capital and grounds, and one hundred and thirty-six acres more for other State buildings, to be apportioned in the following manner: Ten acres for the Governor's house and grounds; five acres for the offices of the Treasurer, Comptroller, Secretary of State, Surveyor General, and Attorney-General, should the Commissioners determine that their offices should not be in the Capitol building; one acre to State Library and Translator's office, should it be determined to separate them from the State House building; twenty acres for an Orphan Asylum; ten acres for a Male Charity Hospital; ten acres for a Female Charity Hospital; four acres for an Asylum for the Blind; four acres for a Deaf and Dumb Asylum; twenty acres for a Lunatic Asylum; eight acres for four Common Schools; twenty acres for a State University; four acres for a State Botanical Garden; and twenty acres for a State Penitentiary.

But with a munificence casting this already long list of grants into the shade, he further proposed to donate and pay over to the State, within two years after the acceptance of these propositions, the gigantic sum of three hundred and seventy thousand dollars, to be apportioned in the following manner: For the building of a State Capitol, one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars; for furnishing the same, ten thousand dollars; for building of the Governor's house; ten thousand dollars; for furnishing the same, five thousand dollars; for the building of State Library, and Translator's Office, five thousand dollars; for a State Library five thousand dollars; for the building of the offices of the Secretary of State, Comptroller, Attorney-General, Surveyor-General, and Treasurer, should the Commissioners deem it proper to separate them from the State House, twenty thousand dollars; for the building of an Orphan Asylum, twenty thousand dollars; for the building of a Female Charity Hospital, twenty thousand dollars; for the building of a Male Charity Hospital, twenty thousand dollars; for the building of an Asylum for the Blind, twenty thousand dollars; for the building of a Dead and Dumb Asylum, twenty thousand dollars; for the building of a State University, twenty thousand dollars; for University Library, five thousand dollars; for scientific apparatus therefor, five thousand dollars; for chemical laboratory therefor, three thousand dollars; for a mineral cabinet therefor, three thousand dollars; for the building of four common school edifices, ten thousand dollars; for purchasing books for same, one thousand dollars; for the building of a Lunatic Asylum, twenty thousand dollars; for a State Penitentiary, twenty thousand dollars; for a State botanical collection, three thousand dollars.

In his memorial, the General states with much lucidity his reasons for claiming the proud position for the place suggested as the proper site for the State Capital. Mark the singleness of purpose with which he bases these claims: -

"Your memorialist, with this simple proposition (namely, that in the event of the government declining to accept his terms it should be put to the popular vote at the general election held in November of that year - 1850), might stop here, did he not believe that his duty as a citizen of California required him to say this much in addition - that he believes the location indicated is the most suitable for a permanent seat of government for the State of California, for the following reasons: That it is the true center of the State, the true center of commerce, the true center of population, and the true center of travel; that, while the Bay of San Francisco is acknowledged to be the first on the earth, in point of extent and navigable capacities, already, throughout the length and breadth of the wide world it is acknowledged to be the very center between Asiatic and European commerce. The largest ship that sails upon the broad sea can, within three hours, anchor at the wharves of the place which your memorialist proposes as your permanent seat of government. From this point, by steam navigation , there is a greater aggregate of mineral wealth within eight hours' steaming, than exists in the Union besides; from this point the great north and south rivers - San Joaquin and Sacramento - cut the State longitudinally through the center, fringing the immense gold deposits on the one hand, and untold mercury and other mineral resources on the other; from this point steam navigation extends along the Pacific coast south to San Diego and north to the Oregon Line, affording the quickest possible facilities for our sea-coast population to reach the State Capital in the fewest number of hours. This age, as it has been truly remarked, has merged distance into time. In the operations of commerce and the intercourse of mankind, to measure miles by the rod is a piece of vandalism of a by-gone age; and that point which can be approached from all parts of the State in the fewest number of hours, and at the cheapest cost, is the truest center.

"The location which your memorialist proposes as the permanent seat of government is certainly that point.

"Your memorialist most respectfully submits to your honorable body, whether their is not a ground of even still higher nationality; it is this: - that at present, throughout the wide extent of our sister Atlantic States. but one sentiment seems to possess the entire people, and that is, to build in the shortest possible time, a railroad from the Mississippi to the Bay of San Francisco, where its western terminus may meet a three weeks steamer from China. Indeed, such is the overwhelming sentiment of the American people upon this subject, there is but little doubt to apprehend its early completion. Shall it be said, then, while the world is coveting our possession of what all knowledge to be the half-way house of the earth's commerce - the great Bay of San Francisco - that the people of the rich possessions are so unmindful of its value as not to ornament her magnificent shores with a capital worthy of a great State?"

Upon receipt of General Vallejo's memorial by the Senate, a committee composed of members who possessed a thorough knowledge of the country comprised in the above quoted document, both geographical and topographical, were directed to report for the information of the President, upon the advantages claimed for the location of the capital at the spot suggested in preference to others. The report in which the following words occur, was presented to the Senate on April 2, 1850: - "Your committee cannot dwell with too much warmth upon the magnificent propositions contained in the memorial of General Vallejo. They breathe throughout the spirit of an enlarged mind and a sincere public benefactor, for which he deserves the thanks of his countrymen and the admiration of the world. Such a proposition looks more like the legacy of a mighty Emperor to his people than the free donation of a private planter of a great State, yet poor in public finance, but soon to be among the first of the earth."

The report which was presented by Senator D. C. Broderick of San Francisco, goes on to point out the necessities which should govern the choice of a site for California's capital recapitulates the advantages pointed out in the memorial, and finally recommends the acceptance of General Vallejo's offer. This acceptance did not pass the Senate without some opposition and considerable delay; however, on Tuesday, February 4, 1851, a message was received from Governor Burnett, by his private secretary, Mr. Ohr, informing the Senate that he did this day sign an Act originating in the Senate entitled "An Act to provide for the permanent location of the Seat of Government." In the meantime General Vallejo's bond had been accepted; his solvency was approved by a committee appointed by the Senate to inquire into that circumstance; the report of the commissioners sent to mark and lay out the tracts of land proposed to be donated was adopted, and, on May 1, 1851, the last session of the Legislature at San Jose was completed; but the archives were not moved to the new seat of government at Vallejo then, the want of which was the cause of much disatisfaction among the members.

The Legislature first sat at Vallejo on January 5, 1852, but there was wanting the attraction of society which would appear to be necessary to the seat of every central government. With these Sacramento abounded, The assembly therefore, with a unanimity bordering on the marvelous, passed a bill to remove the session to that city, ball tickets and theater tickets being tendered to the members in reckless profusion. The bill was transferred to the Senate and bitterly fought by the Hons. Paul K. Hubbs and Phil. A. Roach. The removal was rejected by one vote. This was on a Saturday, but never was the proverb of we "know not what the morrow may bring forth," more fully brought to bear upon any consideration. Senator Anderson it is said passed a sleepless night, through the presence of unpleasant insects in his couch; on the Monday morning he moved a reconsideration of the bill; the alarm was sounded on every hand, and at 2 p.m. on January 12, 1852, the Government and Legislature was finding its way to Sacramento by way of the Carquinez Straits. On March 7, 1852, a devastating flood overwhelmed Sacramento, and where they had before feared contamination, they now feared drowning. The Legislature adjourned at Sacramento May 4, 1852, the next session to be held at Vallejo. On January 3, 1853, the peripatetic government met again at Vallejo, whither had been moved in May, the archives and State offices. Once more the spirit of jealousy was rampant; Sacramento could not with any grace ask for its removal back thither; but she, working with Benicia, the capital was once more on wheels and literally carted off to the latter town for the remaining portion of the session, when a bill was passed to fix the capital of the State at Sacramento, and there-after clinched by large appropriations for building the present magnificent capitol there. The last sitting of the Legislature was held on February 4, 1853, when it was resolved to meet at Benicia on the 11th of the month, the vote then taken being as follows: AYES - Messrs. BAIRD, DENVER, ESTILL, HAGER, HUBBS, HUDSPETH, KEENE, LIND, LOTT, LYONS, McKIBBEN, ROACH, SMITH, SNYDER, SPRAGUE, WADE, WOMBOUGH - 17. NAYS - CRABB, COFFORTH, FOSTER, GRUWELL, RALSTON, WALKUP - 6.

But to return to our particular subject. During the first session at San Jose, but little was done beyond dividing the State into counties, and organizing their governments. At this time, Robert Hopkins was elected District Judge and Assemblyman, J. E. Brackett, Major-General of the second division of militia. Mr. Hopkins, who with the Hon. George Pearce had been appointed a committee to visit the capital in order to prevent, if possible, the establishment of a boundary line which would include the Sonoma Valley in Napa County, was a resident lawyer of Sonoma. On arrival at San Jose, the question of appointing a Judge for the Sonoma District was attracting attention, and the only candidate was W. R. Turner, who though a gentleman of capabilities, did not reside there, and probably had never visited the spot. Pearce proposed to Hopkins to run for the office; he allowed himself to be put in nomination, and he beat Turner, who knew not of opposition, just as he was putting forth his hand to seize the prize. The vote was unanimous for Hopkins, and Turner received some other district. Thus we see how narrow was the escape which Sonoma had at the outset of receiving a District Judge, who was utterly unknown to her residents. Pearce went to San Jose for one purpose and accomplished another, while Hopkins came back a full-fledged Judge of a most important district.

The State of California was admitted into the Union on September 9, 1850, and on January 6, 1851, the second Legislature met at San Jose. Martin E. Cook, at this session, represented the Eleventh Senatorial district, which was composed of the counties of Sonoma, Solano, Napa, Marin, Colusa, Yolo, and Trinity - in short all that territory west of the Sacramento river, while in the lower house, this county in conjunction with Napa, Marin, and Solano, were represented by John A. Bradford and A. Stearns. The census agent to the Legislature at this period reports the population of Sonoma County to be five hundred and sixty-one souls.

We have elsewhere mentioned the establishment of the Court of Sessions; they held their first meeting in the county in 1850, the court being composed of A. A. Green, who was County Judge, and Charles Hudspeth and Peter Campbell, Associates. In 1851 Judge Green died, when Martin E. Cook was appointed, but he declining to serve, W. O. King was chosen to fill the office, and he held one term of court.

On September 3, 1851, the first gubernatorial election was held under the new order of things. In this contest, John BIGLER, who received twenty-three thousand seven hundred and seventy-four votes in the State, against twenty-two thousand seven hundred and thirty-three, got by P. B. REDDING, his Whig opponent, had the assistance of that new power which had commenced to creep into the State, in the shape of the squatting element. He was democratic in his manners, being "hale-fellow" with all. Not so his opponent, who was a gentleman of more genteel bearing than the kind-hearted, unambitious, landless Governor, who was always mindful of his friends. Bigler, in all his messages, urged economy, but found it difficult to prevent an office being made for a friend. Tuthill remarks: "It was his pet project to unite the Southern and Western men of his party, and let the free-soilers shift for themselves; but it is not in that direction that party cleavage runs. The Southerners scorned the Alliance. They were 'high-toned', and looked down upon a Missourian, as little better than a man from Massachusetts. The Governor's project would not work. He carried water on both shoulders and split very little on either side."

In November, 1851, the Hon. C. P. WILKINS succeeded Judge GREEN in the position of County Judge; Israel BROCKMAN was Sheriff, and Dr. John HENDLEY, County Clerk and Recorder. In 1852, on July 8th, we find the first record of proceedings of the Court of Session extant among the county archives, when the Judge, C. P. WILKINS, and his associates, Peter CAMPBELL, and J. M. MILLER, were present, with J. HENDLEY, Clerk, and J. A. REYNOLDS, Under Sheriff, assembled to impanel a Grand Jury. These were: W. D. KENT, J. D. GEORGE, Alexander SPECT, Samuel HAVENS, H. N. RYDER, Josiah WILKINS, James CRENSHAW, J. P. THRASHER, A. C. HOLLINGSHEAD, J. W. DAVIS, George SMITH, Arnold HUTTON, Edward BEASLEY, George EDGERTON, John SMITH, Benjamin MITCHELL, H. L. KAMP, J. M. GILLILAND, Robert ANDERSON, George B. FARRAR, Hosea NORRIS, and Leonard DODGE. On October 3d, Phil R. THOMPSON and A. C. GODWIN were appointed Associate Justices, in place of the two gentlemen mentioned above, whose terms had expired.

The first Board of Supervisors for the county met at Sonoma on July 5, 1852, and took charge of those affairs not coming within the immediate duties of the Court of Sessions. The members were D. O. SHATTUCK, who was called upon to fill the distinguished position of Chairman, William A. HEREFORD of Santa Rosa district, Leonard P. HANSON, and James SINGLEY. At the presidential election in the fall of this year, E. W. McKINSTRY was elected District Judge; J. M. HUDSPETH, Senator; H. S. EWING and James McKAMY, Assemblymen.

In the year 1853, we find that the late General Joe HOOKER, then a resident of Sonoma, was elected to the post of Road Overseer, and that Washington township was created and a polling precinct established at the store of A. C. GOODWIN, which occupied a position on the site of the present town of Geyserville. The Democratic Convention met this year at Santa Rosa, and nominated Joe HOOKER and Lindsay CARSON, for the Assembly, and a full county ticket. The Settlers' Convention, met on August 6th and nominated a full county ticket, headed by James N. BENNETT and Judge Robert HOPKINS for the Assembly. When the election day arrived, September 7th, - CARSON was elected to the Legislature and BENNETT and HOOKER were equal. The removal of the county seat from Sonoma to Santa Rosa did not enter largely into the first contest though such a change was openly discussed; in the second heat the election of either BENNETT or HOOKER hinged directly on the issue. The election came off on October 29th, and BENNETT, who lived in and was sponsor for Bennett Valley, beat HOOKER, a resident of Sonoma, by thirteen votes. Lindsay CARSON resigned before the meeting of the Legislature, therefore another special election was had which resulted in the return, on the 23d, December of W. B. HAGANS, who was opposed by James SINGLEY and Joseph W. BELDEN.

The story of the removal of the county seat, will be found fully set forth in the history of Santa Rosa Township. From that date onwards the county progressed in every branch of public interest.

The first full record of election which we have been able to find in the county archives was that held in the month of November, 1856, and is as follows: -

For Presidential Electors, A. C. BRADFORD, 1519 votes; For member of Congress, Charles L. SCOTT, 1456 votes; For Clerk of Supreme Court, C.S. FAIRFAX, 1481 votes; For State Superintendent of Public Instruction, J. J. MOLDER, 1481 votes; For Prison Director, Moses ARMS, 330 votes; For Senator, A. W. TALIEFERRO, 1088 votes; For members of Assembly, Uriah EDWARDS, 1357 votes; and Richard HARRISON, 1152 votes: For County Superintendent of Public Instruction, Edward FISHER, 1134 votes; For County Assessor, S. D. TOWNE, 1106 votes; Amendments to Constitution - Yes, 169; No, O.

While on the subject of votes, let us here produce, as a matter of curiosity the vote taken in regard to the proposed railroad on May 9, 1868: Cloverdale to Marin County, 2092; Cloverdale to Vallejo, Solano County, 1589; Donahue, Yes, 3166; Donahue, No, 429; Cloverdale to Petaluma, 3.

In conclusion of this portion of our work 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.

It was found that the provisions in regard to taxation and property were too vague a nature to be allowed to hold at this period of progress. At the time when the old constitution was framed in Monterey, it was never contemplated that the State would ever be 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 the 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 Constitution for the State of California was approved March 30, 1878; and by a proclamation of the Governor an election throughout the County of Sonoma was ordered to be held on June 19, 1878, for the purpose of electing delegates to a Constitutional 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 throughout 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 North to South of the adoption of California's new organic law. Under its provisions the new order of officers were elected on September 4, 1879, and now nothing but time can solve the riddle as to its working.