Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-01-30

NeWvliie covered about two townships. Lands |
were assessed from s. to sis an acre.
n. d. Vanderyort testified that he resided |
about nine miles south of Neville. In mis- VI |
cinity the sentiment of the people was in favor
OF division. He voted at Elk Creek, here the
vote was little over 100. He accountsd tor the
large vote or Campbell because the people there
thought that he was in favor of division. Mr. Rose
had declared that he was against division.
Mr.. Campbell had made the statement in that
precinct that he would go for the best interests
OF their people and they supposed ne would
favor division 1t took him four days TO make
the trip TO the present county seat when he
went with wagon. Now that there was rail-
road he could go quickest that way. He men
toned several large landowners who favored
the division.
On crass-examination by Mr. Bayne, he said
he voted for Campbell. He did not see any
newspaper statement that Mr. Campbell had
pledged himself TO oppose division.
Charles j. Papst testified that he resided at
St Jqhns. in the northeastern portioa of Cclusa
county. The people of that section of The
county were opposed 10 division. Personally,
be knew of 10 ore there in favor of division.
DE had lived there for twenty five years.
On cross examination he said that there were
thlrty-seyen votes east in that precinct. Rose
received large vote because it was understood
that he was pledged against the division. and it
was understood there that Campbell favored
division. Asked about the large ranches, he
said that the Walsh est tie covered 10 0C1 acres.
The owners lived IN st. Lonis. Ii was rented
to John Parnell, who resided in Napa and SUBJ
let II 10 others. He was opposed TO division b.
cause he believed il would Increase taxation.
On redirect examination he said Mr. Campbell
oid not visit tie precinct, but the people sup
posed he favored division.
IN answer TO questions by Mr.. Seawell he
/ said he understood the people OF 0riaDd were
opposed to division.
Frank Freeman testified thu. in lSS, he re-
! sided az Orlapd. At the last eleotisn he voted
AZ WILLOWS. Was famiiisr with the sentiment of
Colusa County on the subject. In iSS2 the peo-
pie OF Orland favored u new couliy, formed
out OF the northern part OF Colusa county and
the southern portion of Tehama. The people
at Willows were practically a unit. Rose re-
celved IL votes and Campbell 266 in the Willows
precinct, while Cleveland received log and Har-
rlson III. He thought this was because Rose
was pledged against division while it was not
KNOWN definitely how Campbell stood. Witness
| read the returns OF all the precincts in the
northern part of the county. In the county the
democratic majority was about 200 while Mr..
campbell (Rep.) beat Rose Dem about 100. IL
was understood that il Campbe was elect d
the county would be divided that vote for
Campbell would be a vote for division. though
II was understood that personally Mr.. Camp
bell opposed division.
Peter Peterson of Antelope valley, said that
the division of the county would cut his ranch
IN the middle. All the people there were OPP
posed TO Iivision In the Republican Conven-
| ton Mr.. Camp ell declared himself opposed to
division, first. last and all the time.
James Smith, of Smthville, said the people of
MS section were against division two years ago.
but were now in favor of The division.
L. n. Tapscott, of Princeton, said that he was
merchant and was familiar with the senti-
ments of the peop'e in that section of country
They were opp, ed to division. Princeton W;
located three miles from the prop Jsed south
line OF Glern unity and within its boundaries.
On cross-examination, he said that MIR. Boys s
owned the tract OF land iii that south of Prime.
| ton he thought In all about six sections. Mr.
Packard and Mr.. Boggs were the principal
owners of the lands that encircle Princeton. He
did not know of anyone in that section of the
county who were in favor of division.
W. K. Merrill, said he owned ranch seven
miles south of Willows and another within q
mile of Col 81. The people about Willow S
and Norman were greatly in favor Of
| div sion. He favored division. lie had
no fears of increased taxation He paid about
press any fears about increased taxation The
nonresident land owners generally opposed di-
vision.
| On cross-examination, he said that he be-
| ileved mat the people in the neighborhood of
Orland were not in favor OF this division BILL
| but were in favor of new county seat. He
was Democrat but he voted for Campbell be-
| cause he believed that he would not oppose di-
| vision, while he knew Rose would.
| c. e. Janson, of Germantown. six miles north
| OF Willows, said that majority of the people
He had only found one in favor of it. The peo-
| pie OF the county generally were opposed to it.
a. J. Rasor, who lives near the line OF the
| new, county. said that majority of the people
| residing there were against division, though
| there were not many people living there. He
! favored the division About ninety or hundred
| people came down on special train to attend
| this meeting. WHO were in favor of division.
The meeting then degenerated into general
| discussion between the two factions, one side
| making assertions and the others denying them.
| Mr.. Hurlbuit stated that in the Republican
| convention the question of division was not
| made an issue. 1t was kept out of the platform
| after sharp night, while the Democratic con-
vention pledged their candidate against divis-
| ion. He made ringing speech, in which he
gave the history of the Republican convention.
! IL was division vote that elected Mr.. Camp
| bell.
| Mr.. Campbell said that the convention that
| nominated him did SO as an anti-dvisionist.
| He went upon the platform and said that he
was opposed to division first, last and all the
time. 1t was well understood that he was
pledged on the gus stiol. He did not know
whether the pledge was given before or after
| the nomination
Mr. Bayne closed the argument with speech
| IN which he gave figures showing the cost of
running Colusa county and the amount that
| had been spent in the northern part of the
! county. He asserted that the statistics citcu-
lated by the friends of the bill were incorrect.
| Inc whole amount of taxes raised last year was
| only $4,000. The representatives of Colusa
county in the Legislature were acquainted with
the desires of the people ana were opposed to
! the division.
| 1t was midnight when the meeting adjourned
| and the immense audience dispersed.