LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

If any lawyer in Fresno had advised contrarily, the board would notwithstanding have acted upon the Visalia advice.

      The conspiracy matter was never submitted to another grand jury. Division was effectually squelched. Kings County's land grab took another form and on March 10, 1908. Senators Cartwright of Fresno and Miller of Tulare arrived at a compromise and the Webber bill was passed after two roll calls on defeated amendments and with no reasons given for the passage of the measure. The bill established a new south boundary for Fresno County, the original bill asking for 185 square miles and the last amendment calling for 120. Miller had tied up a bunch of votes with a fairly close prospect on the final result: Cartwright recognized that he had been beaten and Miller was not certain how long he could hold his block intact. In the contest on the floor, Cartwright first proposed the river as a boundary giving Kings thirty-eight and Fresno in return thirteen square miles. This was defeated by a vote of seven to twenty-six. Then came his proposal to give Kings the district in Fresno south of the river; defeated by a viva voce vote. Then was made the offer to give the south of the river land and that about Heinlein understood to have a pro-Kings County population. This was defeated fifteen to eighteen.

      In the debate on the floor on the third reading of the bill with demand of roll call, much was told of the history of the county boundary question in the effort of Kings to secure more taxable property, showing how the campaign was started in Hanford to arouse discontent, carried on for two years to set up a revolt against Fresno and ending in a vote and defeat of the proposition. Cartwright and Miller had made agreement against any lobbying on the bill in the hope of a vote on its merits. On the showing made at the election, it was claimed that the people north of the river were averse to going into Kings but those south of it desired a change.

      Cartwright presented protest from about seventy-five percent, of voters in districts north of the river against any change; showed that ninety percent, of the people of Laton did not want to go into the smaller county and nearly all the families in Riverbend desired to be in Fresno. Miller's reply was almost wholly an attack on Assemblyman A. M. Drew of Fresno for instituting the injunction suit of two years before and lost to prevent the election, denouncing the act as a breach of faith in a matter submitted by the legislature. Interviews with senators on the Webber bill were excused on the plea that two years before Cartwright had beaten Miller in pledging senators on the boundary question. The further plea was that as above sixty per cent, in the territory asked by Kings so voted the change should affect the land on both sides of the river. Kings could not afford to accept the river as a boundary as it would have to spend too much money in bridges without recompense in taxable property.

      Objection being made to the reading of more telegrams from Fresno against a change in boundary, Cartwright had his last fling in the arguments on the amendments to show up Charles King for his welching after making a $1,500 wager on division and losing. Cartwright admitted that this had nothing to do with the bill but he wanted to show the senate what kind of a man was behind the bill.

      As passed, the bill gave Kings about half the valuable territory that it had asked for, leaving to Fresno the town of Laton and placing the line about six miles south of the fourth parallel line south which was the line that Kings desired. Fresno saved three-fourths of those that desired to remain with Fresno and lost nine-tenths of those that wanted to go to Kings.

      And thus ended the chapter on the Kings County grab, denominating the attempted act of brigandage by the mildest of terms.

      OFFICIAL DIRECTORY

      (Fresno, forty-first county of fifty-eight in the order of formation, was created under the act of April 19, 1856. The seventh legislative session at Sacramento adjourned two days after the date of the county creative act.)

       STATE SENATORS

      1857-61. S. A. Merritt. 1862-63, Thomas Baker. 1863-68, J. W. Freeman. 1869-72, Thomas Fowler. 1873-76. Tipton Lindsey. 1877-78, Thomas Fowler. 1879-82, Dr. Chester Rowell. 1883-86. Patrick Reddy. 1887-94, George G. Goucher. 1895-98, Dr. A. T. Pedlar. 1899-1906, Dr. Chester Rowell. 1907-14, George W. Cartwright. 1915, W. F. Chandler. 1919, M. B. Harris.

       ASSEMBLYMEN

      1857, Orson K. Smith. 18.58, A. H. Mitchell. 1859, Tames M. Roan. 1860, T. M. Heston. 1861, Orson K. Smith. 1862, James Smith. 1863-64, Tames N. Walker. 1865-68, R. P. Mace. 1869. P. C. Appling. 1871, J. N. Walker. 1873, TW. Ferguson. 1875, TD. Collins. 1877, R. P. Mace. 1879, C. G. Sayle. 1881, E. T. Griffith. 1883, TF. Wharton. 1885, A. M. Clark. 1887, J. P. Vincent. 1889, E. H. Tucker. 1891-94. G. W. Mordecai and 1893-94, H. J. T. Jacobsen. 1895, N. L. F. Bachman and W. F. Rowell. 1897, G. W. Cartwright and L. W. Moultrie. 1899, John Fairweather and TM. Griffin. 1901, W. F. Chandler and Marvin G. Simpson. 1903, A. M. Drew and TO. Traber. 1005-08, W. F. Chandler and A. M. Drew. 1909, W. R. Odom and A. M. Drew. 1911. W. F. Chandler, W. A. Sutherland. 1913. Chandler, Sutherland and L. B. Cary. 1915, L. D. Scott. Henry Hawson and Roy C. Traber. 1917, A. A. Carlson, Henry Hawson and Melvin Pettit. 1919, S. L. Strother, B. D. McKean and Melvin Pettit.

       DISTRICT JUDGES

      Fresno County was in the thirteenth judicial district until the system was changed with the constitution adopted in 1879.

      1856, Ethelbert Burke. 1864, T. M. Bondurant. 1865, Alexander Deering. 1868, A. C. Bradford. 1873, Alexander Deering. 1875, J. B. Campbell and the last on the district court bench.

       COUNTY JUDGES

      1856. Charles A. Hart. 1860, James Sayles, Jr. 1864, E. C. Winchell. 1867, Gillum Baley and the last under the judicial system of the old constitution.

       SUPERIOR COURT

      1880. S. A. Holmes. 1884. J. B. Campbell. 1887. M. K. Harris (appointed to the newly created Department two of the court and in November 1888 elected to a full term). 1890, S. A. Holmes. 1894, J. R. Webb previously appointed to the additional Department three, and E. W. Risley elected to Department two. 1895. Stanton L. Carter appointed, vice Holmes deceased. 1896, George E. Church elected to fill out that unexpired term. 1900, H. Z. Austin and George E. Church, both on the bench in Departments one and two and reelected thereafter. 1918, D. A. Cashin appointed by the governor to the Third Department judgeship created at the legislative session before. 1919, H. Z. Austin, reelected; D. A. Cashin, elected, Departments one and three; M. F. McCormick, elected, Department two.

       COUNTY SUPERVISORS

      (There has never been published a complete, correct and reliable county official roster. The early records are incomplete and perplexing. The provision of filing a bond as an official qualification was often neglected, and by the early supervisors apparently ignored — at any rate none are of record. Not until after 1862 was there record of election returns or of official declarations of results. The first name for every yearly grouping that follows is that of the board chairman.)

      1856 — John R. Hughes, John A. Patterson, John L. Hunt.

      1857— J. R. Hughes, James E. Williams, Clark Hoxie.

      1858 — Clark Hoxie, Tames Smith, James W. Rankin.

      1859— H. E. Howard, C. D. Simpson, A. C. Bullock.

      1860—J. B. Royal, L. J. Carmack, Justin Esrey.

      1861— G. B. Abel, J. B. Royal, L. J. Carmack.

      1862— W. H. Parker, John L. Hunt, Reuben Reynolds.

      1863 — John L. Hunt, James Blackburn, J. G. Simpson.

      1864-65— John L. Hunt, J. G. Simpson, W. W. Hill.

      1866— J. L. Hunt, J. G. Simpson, S. S. Hyde.

      1867— J. G. Simpson, S. S. Hyde. H. C. Daulton.

      1868—

Скачать книгу