# California Historical Society Quarterly/Volume 22/The San Jose Mercury and the Civil War

The San Jose Mercury and the Civil War
By Benjamin Bronston Beales
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND
THE pueblo of San Jose was established in 1777 by Felipe de Neve, first Spanish governor of California: sixty-six persons were sent from San Francisco under the leadership of Jose Moraga. They were charged with the task of providing grain for the military garrisons of Monterey and San Francisco. It was not long before the settlers in and around the little town were producing grain, leather, and tallow for export. These found a ready market on Russian and American ships which occasionally called at San Francisco in the course of trade along the coast. Fresh meat and vegetables also were sold to American whaling vessels when they made port in San Francisco.
San Jose remained under Spanish jurisdiction until Mexico won its independence in 1821; and it remained in Mexican hands until 1848, when California was ceded to the United States.
The town grew steadily until by 1851 the population numbered over five hundred. An act of the first California legislature incorporated San Jose as a city on March 27, 1850. Included in the population were such diverse nationalities as Mexicans, Peruvians, Chileans, Californians, Indians and some Americans. As in most California towns of the day, the homicide rate was high, although a genuine effort to remedy this condition was made by the various mayors and city councils. Population growth was steady. By 1860 there were over three thousand inhabitants in the city.
At the outbreak of the Civil War there were two newspapers in San Jose. The oldest, the San Jose Mercury, under a variety of names had been published regularly for a period of about ten years. It began publication as the Weekly Visitor. Politically it was first Whig, but later in the same year it became Democratic. In 1852 its name was changed to the Register. The next year it became the Telegraph, and in 1861 it was sold to James Jerome Owen and Benjamin H. Cottle.
Owen, according to Eugene Sawyer, was "a man among men . . . broadminded and scrupulously honest."^ He was born in Onondaga County, New York on July 22, 1827, the second son of a family of seven sons and two daughters. His father died when James was twelve, and young Owen soon left home to make his own way. He became an apprentice printer in Auburn, New York, and when he was eighteen received his journeyman's rating. No doubt it was here that he began to develop his taste for journalism. The young man spent much of his spare time in home study in order to fill in the ​
gaps left by his lack of formalized education. That he did well is attested to by the forceful style and eloquent appeal of his later editorials.
Owen was married at twenty-one, and became the father of a family of six—two sons and four daughters. He remained a printer until 1850, when, leaving his family in New York State, he journeyed to Callfornia by way of the Isthmus of Panama. A few months later he returned to New York, but came back to California in 1851. Obtaining employment as a messenger on the Sacramento River for the firm known as Gregory's Express, which was shortly after sold to Wells Fargo & Company, he remained at this work until 1853 when he again returned to New York.
For eight years the future editor of the Mercury appears to have been busily employed as farmer and teacher. For three years of this time he served as superintendent of schools for Cayuga County, and in 1857 he was elected to the assembly of the State of New York.
In 1861, just a few months before the beginning of the Civil War, Owen moved his family to San Jose and there established his home. Soon after his arrival, he and Benjamin H. Cottle purchased the San Jose Telegraphy changed its name to the Mercury and began immediate publication with Owen as editor. Owen and his paper gained a national reputation. Politically the editor was Republican, and throughout the war he was in the main loyal to Lincoln.
The second phase of his political career began in 1 862 when he was elected to the California legislature as a representative from Santa Clara County. He was reelected in 1863 and was Speaker pro-tem during part of his second term. From 1882 to 1885 he was a trustee of the State Library. He retained his affiliations with the Mercury until 1885, and he died in San Francisco in 1895 at the age of sixty-eight.
The second newspaper in San Jose was the Tribune^ a weekly which was established in 1854. In 1855 it was sold to George O'Daugherty. He vigorously opposed the Republicans in general and the Mercury in particular during 1 861 and 1862. The Tribune was suppressed for eight months in 1862 and 1863, by order of General George Wright, for alleged seditious activity. It resumed publication later in 1863, but was shortly afterwards sold to Francis B. Murdoch, a Republican.
II. REACTION OF THE MERCURY TO GOVERNMENT POLICIES DURING THE CIVIL WAR
Although the immediate cause of the Civil War was the question of the preservation of the Union, by October 1861, the editor of the Mercury was of the opinion that the end of the war would see the end of slavery in the United States.^ That the Federal Government intentionally had been careful to evade the slavery question in the early stages of the war was conceded by ​
the Mercury as a necessary means of maintaining national unity on the basis of the old status quo. By this time, however, Owen wrote, the seizure of slave-holders' property in the seceded states was justified as a means of hastening the reestablishment of national unity. Beyond and above all this, he saw freedom and free institutions as the "tendency of the age."^
Owen editorialized in December that the President could issue a general proclamation freeing all slaves without direct reference to any article in the Constitution. As commander-in-chief of the armed forces, he continued, this was the President's right.^ In a later issue Owen explained that personally he favored freeing the slaves by proclamation in the seceded states only, but not in the so-called border areas. For the latter states he favored "peaceable purchase" as the best means of meeting the problem.* He believed, however, that regardless of Government action the South in time would free its slaves as a means of self preservation.^ Undoubtedly he based this opinion upon the mistaken supposition that, if not freed, the slaves would rebel. To a charge that the abolition of Negro slavery would result in miscegenation he replied briefly that "our race has nothing to fear from contact with the lower races of mankind."^
The defeat of the McClay Negro Testimony Bill, which proposed giving the testimony of a Negro in the California courts the same weight as that of any other person, drew from Owen the most bitter and caustic editorial criticism. He reproached the legislators for their narrow-mindedness and their inference that because Negro blood flowed in the veins of a witness, that witness was incapable of uttering legal truths.'^
The editor saw slavery as one of the principal causes for the economic and sociological backwardness of the lower segments of the white population of the South. Slavery, in his opinion, was harmful to both Negro and slaveholder as well as to those whites who were in close contact with the institution, such as the "poor whites."*
Lincoln, in September 1862, issued a proclamation which stated that all slaves in the seceded states would be declared free on January i, 1863, unless the rebels would lay down their arms before that date. Barely three weeks before the deadline Owen wrote: "If it (the Emancipation Proclamation) fails, the Union fails." He emphasized the fact that he meant the union of both the loyal and the seceded segments of the nation.^
When the proclamation was issued, Owen asserted that the waning Union hopes would be revived and terror struck in the heart of the rebellion. He predicted that slave uprisings would complicate further the Confederate war effort.^^ The latter hope was never realized. As late as A4arch 1863, Owen suggested that the Federal Government utilize freed slaves to bear the brunt of the war against their former masters. It was his opinion that if they were so used the North would find itself "in a speedy and overwhelming victory embraced within the limits of a few weeks."^^ Just how these ​
Negroes were to be used was not mentioned. In all, about 200,000 Negroes were enlisted in the Union armies/^ With a better than average insight into the implications of the proclamation, Owen analyzed the war prior to January 1863 as a struggle for national supremacy between two geographic sections. In light of the proclamation, he viewed the war then as one that had attained the "grandeur and magnitude of a great struggle for human rights."^^ The Emancipation Proclamation was to him both a military necessity and a righteous measure.
Following the proclamation, many argued that the Negro would overrun the North and cause sociological and economic problems. Owen denied this. He thought the Negro would remain where the climate was more congenial and his services more in demand. He, however, did not deny to the Negro the right as a free man to move wherever he pleased. Freedom for the Negro, in his opinion, did not elevate him to social equality with the whites because, "Social equality . . . is a myth even among the white race."^* Once again he indulged his theory of natural progression when he wrote that for slavery to conquer freedom would be to reverse all known functions of this law.^^ He saw in the separate schools which existed for Negroes in San Jose a "vestige of barbarism," but he advocated no immediate change "in the face of existing prejudices."^^ At about the same time, he insisted that once and for all the word "white" be stricken from the California constitution and that the Negro enjoy "full, free and equal privileges with every citizen of the State."^^
From the very beginning of the Civil War, ways and means of financing the conflict occupied the minds of the leaders of both North and South. The proposed taxation of incomes above a certain level and the raising of the schedules of various other sources of revenue by the Federal Government induced Owen to suggest that at least a portion of the war expenses could be procured by selling the lands of secessionists "to loyal Union men."^^
The long anticipated war tax measure was passed by Congress late in 1 862. Early in 1863, Owen explained the nature of the bill to his readers and voiced the optimistic opinion that actually more profit would accrue to the nation in better post-war trade relations because of the new tax law. Just how this was to be accomplished was not mentioned. He again declared that the cost of the war ought to be borne by the South alone.^^
In order to bolster its credit and more adequately sustain the value of the currency in circulation, the Federal Government suspended specie payments on January i, 1862. Prior to this date, several large banks in the East had done the same thing on their own initiative. Regarding these independent suspensions before the general Government order had been issued, Owen, doubtless to ease the minds of some panicky individuals, wrote that this action was necessary to "enlarge the financial operation of the country" ​
and that the general order for suspension was "not one of necessity, but one of prudence and defense."^"
One of the several methods by which the Government financed the war was the printing and circulation of bills of various denominations called "greenbacks." These were bills of credit issued against the United States Government. In 1864 nearly three dollars in greenbacks was needed to purchase one dollar in gold. During these uncertain days, Owen was staunch in his support of this Government policy. He pointed out that these bills were absolutely necessary to carry on the war. He called them "money borrowed on the future" and rightly insisted that, if the Union did stand, every dollar's worth of greenbacks would be redeemed at parity value.^^ Redemption was ultimately effected in 1879.
The bill which created the forerunner of our present national banking system was passed by Congress in 1863 and amended in 1864. The system greatly aided in the stabilization of the currency of the North during and after the war. In view of the evils of the historic state banking methods, Owen saw the national banks as the models for future state banks in which bonds of the various states would form a portion of the collateral of these institutions in the same manner as United States Government bonds were to be used in the newly created national banks. He also predicted that the new unified system would serve to strengthen the bonds of unity after the war. In fact he went so far as to state that "the most desirable end (national banks) will overbalance many of the evils of secession and will prove one of the most efficient means of harmonizing the rebellious elements and reconciling the Southern States to their subjugation as equal members of the great national confederacy. "22 Here Owen appears to have advocated acceptance of the rebel states on equal terms after their surrender, an idea which he changed several times during the course of the war.
When the Civil War began, Lincoln, as commander-in-chief of the military forces of the nation, authorized the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus along the lines of march between Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. This area was later extended by Presidential proclamation. Congress authorized that the writ be suspended in July 1863. Some local criticism of Congress must have been immediate, because on July 1 8 Owen wrote that the action by Congress was justified in view of the fact that in wartime the "civil processes are entirely too sluggish to meet certain emergencies." He added that it was the duty of the President to suppress the rebellion by legal means if possible, but "at any rate to do it." As an afterthought he wrote that it was only the "Peace Democrats" who were continually finding fault with the administration. 2^
Proposals for the post-war reconstruction of the South only briefly occupied the attention of the editor of the Mercury. After a little more than a year of war had passed, Owen was of the opinion that the only way to settle ​
decisively the question of the loyalty of the citizens of the South after the war was to keep them surrounded "by barriers of fixed bayonets." He also recommended that they be deprived of power by taking from them their lands and Negroes, because "a traitor has no rights of property."^*
Almost three years after writing the above, Owen altered his opinion regarding the direction reconstruction should follow. In February 1865, he saw these problems as much more imaginary than real if only statesmen would strive to solve them on the broadest bases of democratic idealism, thereby eliminating the slaveholding, landholding class. He favored a relatively long period of post-war subjugation before the work of reconstruction should actually commence.^^
III. THE MERCURY AND POLITICS DURING THE CIVIL WAR
The Democratic party had held virtual control of the politics of the nation since the election of Franklin Pierce in 1852. Except for a brief period of "Know Nothing" ascendency from 1855 to 1857, California politics likewise had been dominated by the same party since 1 849. The success of the Republican party in the Presidential elections of 1850 presaged a change in national policy which culminated in the Civil War.
Since 1858 the Democrats had been split into two factions over the slavery question. In 1860 they held two separate conventions and separate Presidential candidates were nominated. The Northern and Southern elements named Stephen Arnold Douglas and John Cabell Breckinridge as their respective candidates. The remnants of the old Whig and American parties united under the name of the Constitutional Union party. They nominated John C. Bell, of Tennessee. They were committed to a platform of compromising the slavery question and maintaining the Union as it then was.
The victory of Lincoln in California, as in the nation at large, was won at the expense of a divided Democratic party. Douglas and Breckinridge together received a total of almost 72,000 votes, while the total vote for Lincoln was only slightly over 38,500. The totals for the state, according to Winfield Davis, were: Lincoln, 38,734; Douglas, 38,023; Breckinridge, 33,795, and Bell, 9,136.^
The pattern of the vote in San Jose showed that Union sentiment was relatively strong compared to the state as a whole. According to the Mercury the official count in San Jose was: Lincoln, ^^ i; Douglas, 377; Breckinridge, 232; and Bell, 31. Breckinridge trailed Douglas by 145 votes, while together the two Democratic candidates received 58 votes more than were cast for Lincoln. Comparison shows that Lincoln received a much larger share of the total vote in San Jose than he did in the state at large. On the other hand, the number of votes cast for Breckinridge was comparatively light. ​
The annual municipal election was scheduled to be held in San Jose in April 1 86 1. In anticipation of this event, the Republicans of San Jose passed a resolution which demanded that each nominee of the Republican party pledge himself to that party and, if elected, dispense no political patronage upon anyone who was not a Republican.^ Local Democrats probably passed a similar resolution.
Although local Democrats had failed to see eye to eye regarding their two Presidential candidates, nevertheless, by April they united to elect their members to municipal offices. In the elections of that month, "Sham Democracy," according to the Mercury, received 306 votes as against 236 for the Republicans.^ Shortly after this Republican defeat, Owen resolutely proclaimed concerning the Mercury: "We intend that it shall be an efficient [Republican] party organ."*
The national losses of the Democratic party did not daunt its leaders. They pointed to the coming fall elections with confidence. The Placerville Times saw the prospects of the Democratic party as "brighter. . .than they have been for a year past."^ The Republicans for their part desired a sweeping victory because they were convinced that the Democrats in Sacramento were either outright secessionists or advocates of a peace policy.^
Shortly after the Democratic schism of 1860, a national movement was begun to unite the followers of Douglas with the Republicans. This coalition was to be known as the Union party. Owen at first was not in favor of such a union on the grounds that its "elements were too inharmonious and too sluggish."^ No further attempt was made to unite the two groups in San Jose that year.
Before the end of the first week of June 1861, the Republicans of Santa Clara County elected forty-eight delegates to a convention which was to be held in San Jose on the fifteenth. With one vote to each delegate, San Jose and Santa Clara together accounted for twenty of the total of forty-eight votes.^ On the eve of this convention, Owen charged that the Democratic party was chiefly responsible for the war.^
The county meeting was held as scheduled. Santa Clara County Republicans passed resolutions to support the national administration in the war effort and then added that all other issues should be subordinated thereto. They further declared that the Republican party was the only real Union party and thus further disqualified any other attempts to unite with the Douglas Democrats at that time. At the same time, however, they invited the cooperation "of all men who are in favor of sustaining the Administration in its efforts to preserve the Union and enforce its laws." Leland Stanford was endorsed by the convention as its choice for governor.^^ This was a most crucial election for the Republicans of California because it was to be contested with a firmly entrenched Democratic group headed by the incumbent governor, John Downey. ​
Owen sought adherents from the ranks of the Douglas Democrats, using as his argument the fact that the Democratic party was divided against itself and that their party leaders had injured the reputation of the party beyond recovery.^' Not many Democrats, however, appear to have joined the RepubHcans in San Jose at this time. On the contrary, their dual elements seem to have been drawn somewhat closer together. Owen mentioned some evidences of fusion in the Democratic state nominations. He bitterly denounced the Douglas Democrats in this connection, in an editorial which appeared in the July 25 issue of the Mercury ^ taking them to task for assuming to be with the Republicans in sentiment and at the same time striving to maintain their identity as Democrats.^^
The Douglas Democrats answered these charges by calling a mass meeting of all local Democrats who were opposed to fusing with the secessionists.^^
The editor of the San Jose Tribune held out very little hope for the Republicans in the pending state election.^* Owen, for his part, saw^ all the issues and platforms of the various parties boiled down to the fact that the only question before California was whether or not the war policy of the Administration would be wholeheartedly supported.^^
The elections were held on September 4. The Mercury announced the results on the twelfth. Owen estimated Stanford's county majority over the Douglas Democrat, John Conness, and the "Compromise" Democrat, John R. McConnell, as "about 570." The Santa Clara County tabulation was as follows: Stanford, 756; Conness, 113; and McConnell, 357. These are Owen's figures, which apparently are wrong because his own figures indicate Stanford's majority as only 386.^^ It is interesting to note that the county Democrats voted about three to one in favor of the Compromise Democratic candidate, McConnell, over Conness. This is indicative of the relatively large number of secessionist sympathizers in and about San Jose. A total of 1,195 votes wer€ cast in San Jose. The Mercury gave the total for the state as: Stanford, 56,038; Conness, 30,944; and McConnell, 32,751.^^ Davis verifies the report of the Mercury}^ The state Democrats, it will be noticed, slightly favored McConnell over Conness.
Owen viewed the election results as fortunate and stated that had the Republicans not gained a victory, California would have been in serious economic difficulties because "Capitalists became frightened . . . for all their wealth was at stake." He accused the previous Democratic administrations of overtaxing the people of California.^^
George O'Daugherty, the editor of the Tribune^ in reference to the split in the Democratic vote, wrote that he hoped this election would prove "to be a never to be forgotten lesson to the Democrats of California."^^
The Democrats gained minor successes in the Congressional elections of 1862. Owen rationalized these gains by writing that the Democratic party ​
in the East was intensely loyal, which was not the case in California. As a consequence this would not, according to Owen, affect the war policies of the Administration. He went on to say, however, that the national Democratic victories were proof that the Republicans had enlisted in the Union armies to do the fighting while the Democrats had remained at home to do the voting.^^ O'Daugherty perceived these election results as indicating a change in public sentiment in favor of compromising the issues involved in the war. 2 2
The Democratic party had held the same tight grip on the municipal affairs of San Jose as it had on those of the state prior to Stanford's election, having been in complete control since 1850. The municipal election was due to be held in April 1862. In the preceding February, Owen had again condemned the move of certain Republicans to join with the Union (formerly Douglas) Democrats because, in Owen's words, the Democrats professed to "see eye to eye with the Republicans" but "oppose every question of state policy."^^ In view of the forthcoming municipal elections, however, he favored a temporary coalition, which was promptly turned down by the local Republican organization. As a result, Owen reported that the Republican party would form no "compromising alliance for the purpose of carrying the municipal elections."^* After being turned down by the Republicans, the Union Democrats of San Jose appear to have united with the Breckinridge group in a so-called "Peoples party." As a consequence, the incumbent Democratic mayor, Asa Johnson, was reelected.
Milton S. Latham, United States senator from California, had been elected to that office on January 1 1, 1862, after he had served only three months as governor of the state. His was the task of filling the unexpired term of David C. Broderick, who had been slain by Chief Justice David S. Terry in a duel now famous in California annals. Latham, in 1862, was campaigning for reelection to the Senate. In connection with this effort, he made several speeches seeking to justify the action of the Administration in contesting the right of the South to secede, but, at the same time, he vigorously opposed any action toward emancipation. He also bitterly attacked the Republicans for their support of the movement. Consequently, Owen expressed the hope that the new legislature would "elect a Senator in place of Milton Latham." Owen accused Latham of misrepresenting California in the Senate of the United States.^^ Latham of course was a Democrat, which on ordinary grounds was reason enough for an attack by Owen. Latham was replaced by John Conness, who, it will be recalled, had been defeated for governor by Leland Stanford in the election of 1861.
The spring of 1863 saw the Republicans and the Union Democrats finally uniting to defeat the incumbent city administration. Only 819 votes were cast, as compared with the more than 1200 in 1861. Most of the electorate ​
were looking toward the gubernatorial elections to be held in the coming fall.^«
Republicans and Administration Democrats met in Sacramento on June 17 and nominated Frederick F. Low as their candidate for governor. "Copperhead" and compromise Democrats likewise met in Sacramento on July 8 and there chose for their nominee the former governor, John G. Downey.
Owen was of the opinion that a Republican governor was essential at this time in order to preserve peace in California. He feared a civil war such as that which had been waged in Kansas, in the event Downey was elected. He also feared, that should the Copperhead and compromise Democrats carry the election, California would become a Confederate recruiting ground and San Francisco a port for the fitting out of Confederate privateers.-^ Suffice it to say, the RepubHcans won the election by a majority of almost twenty thousand. ^^
Early in 1864 candidates for the November Presidential election were already being considered. Owen was in favor of retaining Lincoln in office. Attempts on the parts of some Republicans to gain the nomination of John C. Fremont received no support from Owen. Fremont was characterized by the editor as an ambitious demagogue. Nevertheless, insurgent Republicans and a few Democrats met in their own convention in Cleveland, Ohio, on the last day of May 1864, and nominated Fremont. Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson were nominated in a "Union" party convention at Baltimore, Maryland, on June 7, 1864; and General George B. McClellan of peninsular campaign fame was the choice of the Democrats in convention at Chicago.
Owen, having dismissed Fremont in a few brusk words, proceeded to vent his editorial spleen upon McClellan. He bitterly accused him of striving for an immediate end of hostilities with the South and the subsequent recognition of the independence of the Confederacy by the Federal Government.^^ He further took him to task for not resigning his commission of a United States Army major general. This McClellan did on election day, November 8, 1864.
On June 1 6, the Mercury reported that on the previous Tuesday evening (June 14) a theater "was densely packed. . .with loyal citizens of Santa Clara County for the purpose of ratifying the nominations of the Baltimore Convention."'^ The consequences of the renomination of Lincoln were to Owen evidence that the people of the North were determined to sustain the policies of the Administration and to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion.^^ Union clubs, which had been in existence in Santa Clara County since 1861, now became vigorous sponsors of the candidacies of Lincoln and Johnson.
San Jose voted two to one for Lincoln. An incomplete count by the Mercury gave the vote in San Jose as 819 for Lincoln and 410 for McClellan. ​
The balloting in the county, also incomplete, was reported to have been 1,924 for Lincoln and 1,176 for McClellan.^^ In the election of 1864, the total vote in San Jose was more than 1,800 as against approximately 1,000 in the campaign of 1860. Soon after the election excitement had died down somewhat, Owen proudly asserted that San Jose was the "third city in the State in point of voting population."^^
(To be continued)
NOTES TO CHAPTER I
1. Eugene T. Sawyer, History of Santa Clara County, California (Los Angeles: Historic Record Co., 1922), pp. 108-9.
2. Information from Mr. Clyde Arbuckle, of San Jose, California.
NOTES TO CHAPTER II
1. San Jose Mercury, October 4, 1861.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid., December 28, 1861.
4. Ibid., January 16, 1862.
5. Ibid., March 15, 1862.
6. Ibid., April 3, 1862.
7. Ibid., May i, 1862.
8. lbid.,]\i\Y 3, 1 86 1.
9. Ibid., December 18, 1862.
10. Ibid., January 8, 1863.
11. Ibid., June 18, 1863.
12. Julian Hawthorne, United States (New York, 1900), III, 1006.
13. San Jose Mercury, July 30, 1863.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., May 12, 1864.
16. Ibid., January 26, 1865.
17. Ibid., January 5, 1865.
18. Ibid., May 15, 1862.
19. Ibid., January 9, 1863.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid., July 28, 1864.
22. Ibid., August 25, 1864.
23. Ibid., July 18, 1863.
24. Ibid., May 15, 1862.
25. /^f^., February 9, 1865.
NOTES TO CHAPTER III
1. Winfield J. Davis, History of Political Conventions in California, 1849-1892 (Sacramento, 1893), p. 127.
2. San Jose Mercury, March 13, 1861.
3. Ibid., April 16, 1861.
4. Ibid., June 6, 1861.
5. Quoted in ibid., May 2, 1861.
6. Elijah R. Kennedy, The Contest for California in 1861 (Boston, 1916) p. 218.
7. San Jose Mercury, May 9, 1861.
8. Ibid., June 6, 1861. ​9. Ibid.
10. Ibid., June 20, 1861.
11. Ibid., July II, 1861.
12. San Jose Mercury, July 25, 1861.
13. Ibid., August 15, 1 86 1.
14. Quoted in ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid., September 12, 1861.
17. Ibid., November 9, 1861.
18. Davis, op. cit., p. 180.
19. San Jose Mercury, September 12, 1 861.
20. Quoted in ibid., November 9, 1861.
21. I bid., Nov ember 16, 1861.
22. Quoted in ibid., November 9, 1861.
23. Ibid., March 13, 1862.
24. Ibid., March 20, 1862.
25. Ibid., June 26, 1862.
26. Frederick Hall, History of San Jose and Surroundings (San Francisco, 1871), p. 287.
27. San Jose Mercury, August 27, 1863.
28. Davis, op cit., p. 201.
29. San Jose Mercury, September 22, 1864.
30. Ibid., June 16, 1864.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid., November 10, 1864.
33. Ibid., December i, 1864.