The record-union., 1893-01-05
ANNEXATION APPROVED.
a Joint Meeting of Sacramentaas and
YoIoiteS
Votes in Favor of Annexation OF yTasI-
ington to Sacramento County
Lively Speeches.

A Superior Courtroom was crowded to
overlooking last night with residents of
Sacramento and Washington and vicinity,
in Yolo. to consider the proposal of an
nexation of a strip of Yolo about Wash
ington TO Sacramento County, which has
been so much agitated recently. 1t was a
thoroughly representative meeting, and
a number Of ladies were present. The
result showed the sentiment to be prac-
tically unanimous in favor of the plan
proposed.
David Lubin, as Chairman of the Ex-
ecutive Committee, called the meeting TO
order and asked for nominations for
Chairman. Some one nominated Will
lam Henley of Washington, who de-
clined. B. L. Steinman of Sacramento
was placed in nomination by several and
was unanimously elected and took the
chair. J. {. Boyd was unanimously
elected Secretary.
Mr.. Lubin then read three resolutions
prepared by the Executive Committee
and presented at its request.
The first called for committee of five
On legislation To be appointed, and it was
carried unanimously. The second was
Ai4hb a tOlilllllLLS6 u hN6 OC dplOliilGQ On
boundary lines of the proposed strip TO
he annexed.
Mr., Newell of Washington wanted to
know II the committee would be from
Sacramento or Y Olo County, or from both
counties, and was answered that it would
be from both. The resolution was then
carried unanimously.
1t was moved that the committees be
appointed by the Chair, but Mr.. Henley
suggested that the Chairman in appoint
ing the committee should have regard TO
the feeling of opposition that existed to
the scheme. If it was for general reclama-
ton there was no sentiment against it; if
for partial reclamation, everyone would
oppose it.
The motion was then carried.
The third resolution was then read, to
the effect that committee of five be ap-
pointed to appear before the Supervisors
OF this county and ask that they call a
convention to meet at Sacramento, to con-
sist Of Supervisors and citizens of Sacra-
mento, olo, COlusa, SOlano and other
counties, said convention to consider the
most practical method for the permanent
relief of the Overfiowed lands. The reso-
luton was adopted unanimously.
A motion was made that naming the
committee be left to the discretion OF the
Chair. but the general sentiment seemed
to be that in naming the committees the
meeting should be consulted, and this
was done to some extent.
The Committee on Legislation as named
is composed of the following: b. Lubin,
w. A. Curtis, VIM. Henley S. J. lack
son and VIM. Harrison. The Committee
on Boundary Lines; Frank Miller, j. G.
Boyd, DR.. Atkinson, Chas. W. Reed. T.
3. LOvdal. The committee to appear be-
fore the Supervisors: Luke Richardson.
ID. Lubin, Richard May, DIR. Dixon and
Or. G.L. Simmons.
4 nh in holt 80, ,Ss,
presented petition, and wished the resi-
dents Of Washington present to pay par
ticular attention TO the names as read and
determine whether or not majority of
the landowners affected was repre-
sCnted, as If not, portion of the COM
mittee would decline to take further ac-
ton, in pursuance Of a pledge to that
effect
William Henley thought the opposition
ought to have a chance TO present coun-
ter petition, and Mr.. Newell coincided
with him, but the sense Of the meeting
was that ample time had already been
available.
The petition was then read by the Sec
retary as follows:
we, the citizens undersigned. .ssprop-
erty owners and business men Of Wash
ingtOn, Holo County, favor annexation OF
VI ashington, \ olo County, and vicinity
to Sacramento County. William Ii.
- L
per K. c. May E. NJ. Todhunter, James
L. Richardson, w. b. Freeman, H. N.
Cummings, II. Brown per h. c. May,
Mary Hanson, Mary L. Ober Donlev.
Martha De Ris0 per V. De Riso, J. A.
Soule, {. W. Reed, George Z. Emery,
l. II. Buckingham, }. \. Newell, f.
Reinersman, James L. Scott, Richard
Malone, Johanna Markey per II. Z. May,
Dudley Reed, Nj. Mclean, barbara Hilton,
Charles \. Nietten, Christopher Specht,
Mary Harney, Thomas Woods, John and
$. Harrop, Mrs. Il. Murray, John c.
Churchill, John Macarthur, Mrs Ellen
Ieddy, Mrs. Ii. Thomas per Miss NJ
Thomas, f. w. Stigler, Mrs. Anna Bates
per Maine Bates, Mrs. Harms, William
Newton. Edward b. Du1fee, +. Fourness,
J. Dutlee, Frank w. Todhunter, George
Noranus, Charles Thiele, NJ. Dolan, Mrs.
Annie E. Foley, +. l.. Atkinson, NJ. D.,
i. q. Atkinson, Buckman q Carragher,
John DOnley, Fred Christy and Mary
Naring.
Mr.. Henley stated three or four names
OF those on the list did not represent
property in the town of Washington.
which consisted OF n given number of
blocks. He said that majority of the
signers either did not live in the town. or
did not own property in it. In the course
OF his remarks IL developed that in fact
there is no town, as it is not an incorpo-
rated place, but consists OF blocks laid out
many years ago.
Chairman Steinman stated that to his
own knowledge at least two-thirds ofthose
named owned property there. The COM
lnlttee being asked about the matter, Mr..
Curtis answered that he did not know
exactly what the boundaries of Washing
ton were, but the committee had taken
signatures OF people who resided within
he bounds contemplated by the associa-
lion.
Mr.. Henley still insisted that there were
names u people on the list not property
owners in the town, and said that al
though G. NJ. Reed had claimed to reside
in Washington thirty-eight years, he
really never had done so. He added that
more than four-hiths of the property
front owners are opposed to the scheme,
and many had slgued under misrepre-
sentation.
Mr.. Luhin said that Mr.. Henley talked
about misrepresentation, but the COM
mittee was prepared to prove that it had
Tie majority OF the landowners on the
petition, and got them honestly, ana that
they lived in the district which il was
proposed to annex. The question was TOO
important to hinge upon the technicality
OF supposed town boundary. Misrepre-
sentation had been resorted to on the
other side when it was stated that the
bridge was to be moved below Y street
and that the men of " Washington would
have to go the shops by that bridge The
question had been asked of the commit
tee, ''Who gave you the authority to
come here?" The answer was that they
had been appointed by a citizens meet
ing. A meeting O.. the Federated Trades
had been held 10 debate the question and
Mir. Henley's name called out clearly
and plainly, but he did not answer.
If majority of the people over there
were opposed to annexation he had no
objection, and SO far as his labors Were
concerned he wouId droI, the matter The