The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-11-17

Carpenter, against which Mr.. Farrell
~ protested on the ground of fraud
upon which plant a certificate of cleo.
ton was refused to Mr.. Carpenter by
the County Clerk, and the matter
handed over to be unraveled by the
committee on elections of the Legisla.
lure. MIR. Carpenter claimed SIG votes
! Mr.. Farrelly 254 and Mr. Holiday 1872
thus showing a majority of 73 votes ir
favor of the first named
;. j. Clark, attorney for Mr. Farrelly
presented various grounds of objection
and forctbly signified fraud on the part
OF Mr. Carpenter, as we'll as collision
on the part of the Board of Judges. in
spectors and clerks of Contra Costa and
Oakland Township. In the examination
IT was ascertained that the whole num-
Der of votes cast in the township was
81, while, according to the testimony
OF the agent who took the census of the
township but ten short weeks before
there were only 100 votes within its
ilmits-a rather unprecedented influx
OF people in so limited a space of time
1t was also declared that il took al
most TWO hours TO count the CARPENTER
tickets, which lay in a compact yellow
mass at the top of the box, ere any
white ones, representing Farrelly, were
reached, and yet three of the last voters
who cast their ballots at shutdown
swore positively that they had voted
white tickets for Farrelly. An affida-
VT was made by a man named Ford
that he crossed on the ferry boat TO
san Francisco on the day of the cleo
ton and there found man called Gil
man who said he had thirty-seveen
workmen for his bridge on board and
was arranging for their fare. These
men, or some of them. Ford afterward
recognized voting at the polls while he
heard nf fhan1 hot he 10
voted seven times.
Ihe Board of Supervisors of Contra
Costa County, however, took the view
that Mr.. Carpenter was duly elected
and made affidavits to that end, and a
majority of four to six of the Commit
tee on Elections were of the like opin-
ion, and reported in favor of his taking
his seat, in which he was duly con-
firmed, and sworn in April IL, 1853.
Carpenter had at this time a friend
In the well known David q. Frederick.
through whose influence he obtained
the position of enrollir- clerk of the
Senate, which enabled him to advance
various schemes, among others the in
corporation of the town of Oakland.
which took plaoa in 1852 The first
Board of Trustees consisted of A. w.
Burrell, A. j. Moon, Edison Adams, A.
Marrier and H. w. Carpenter. The
latter, however, did not qualify. Be
acres of overfiowed land known as the
water front. In consideration of build
ing small schoolhouse and erecting a
wharf the whole of this magnificent
property wss bartered away to Car
pentier by his associates.
1t is only right to mention, however.
that the Incorporation of the town was
an act unknown to the rest of the
squatters, who woke up one morning to
find that such an act had been passed
The Governor (Bigler) was warned not
to sign the bill, and he at first refused
to do so, but like many other func-
arguments more convincing
than words were found to prevail with
him and he changed his mind in the
matter.
Marrier was president of the Board
of Town Trustees, andsat first refused
to sign the deed. Carpenter told him
that he only wanted to hold the land
in trust for the town, so that succeed
ing board could not make another dis
position.
1t is to be remembered that all this
time not an individual any more than
the sham town government had a right
to single acre of the land. Other par
ties were negotiating with the rightful
owner for the purchase of it, and in
case they succeeded the whole plot
might be broken up. This was the ar
> II,
when he finally consented to sign the
deed, the former solemnly promising
him that he would deed back the prop
erty to the town so soon as all danger
was passed. Carpenter forgot to do
his and there Is in existence an affi-
1avit> of Andrew Marrier. who died
years ago, solemnly affirming this
statement.
March 25, 1854, Oakland was incorpo-
'ated as a city, and Horace w Carpen- |
Ter was elected its first Mayor, by the |
same tactics as he had invariably pur-
ued in all his undertakings. Three hun |
ired and sixty-eight votes were cast |
1t this election, but votes. then, were |
10 indication of the number of settlers, |
md 1t is certain that there was no such |
number of legal voters in the town. |
rhe Council elected in 1854 was anti
Carpenter" and caused proceedings to /
,e instituted to recover the water front |
the giving away of which was no |
loubt, deep laid plot in the first place,
by Carpentier when he in
the place into town. The
litigation which followed was persistent
tut unavailing.
1t has been frequently said that Car
entier did not know the value of the
vater front and that he was unaware
f the magnitude Of what he was do
ng. This is not true, for Immediately
tier the SlSHluS VI Lie QScQ 0dI peIl-
Ter sold one-quarter of the water front
o E. r. Carpenter for $3.50, and
/ August, 1854. while Mayor of this
ity, he sold the remainder to Harriet
!. Carpenter for 100000. In August.
s55, John B. Watson sold the entire
rater front to Harriet Carpenter.
nough how it passed into the hands of
Watson is a profound mystery, as
1ere is no record to divulge the secret.
In March, 1868. there sprung into ex-
stence the celebrated Water Front
ompany. Carpenter. at this time. had
gain secured the ownership of the
'ater front and organized company
f which the officers were III. w. Car
enter, president; Lloyd Tevis. treas
rer; E. H. Miller, secretary: Leland
tanford, John B. FELTON, and Samuel
[errttt.
Then began that long fight in the
legislature and the courts for the pos
sssion of the water front. It is now