FIGHTS AND LAW-SUITS.

405

and death, fire and extermination, should any attempt be made to expel them. Fort Larkin the place was called, in honor of one of the ringleaders. The galley of a sailing-vessel, perforated with port-holes, had been planted as a fortress on the disputed lot, overlooking which, on a sandy eminence, stood a dilapidated shanty, the headquarters of the belligerents who thus aspired to become owners of lots by merely taking possession of them. The next day a much larger meeting for the suppression of squatterism was held at Musical Hall.

More and more audacious the squatters of Mission street became every day. And the infection for obtaining property without rendering an equivalent spread rapidly over the city. Soon there was scarcely a lot that was not fenced in and guarded, either by its rightful owner or by some wrongful claimant. Presently squatter rose up against squatter, and fought each other. On Green street, between Stockton and Powell, James Lick owned a lot which two squatters claimed simultaneously, Murphy and Duffy being the contending claimants, and each backed by a subclaimant. One party erected a fence, and when the other side attempted to pull it down, pistols were fired, and a woman and a man shot. The squatters were no less active than their opponents in holding meetings and forming secret associations. Before the disputed premises on Mission street armed men were stationed, who marched back and forth night and day like sentinels. The authorities at length took the matter up, and drove them away; but scarcely were they out of sight before the squatters were back again in possession, and nailing up their demolished fences. Finally they were effectually dislodged; the rightful owners were then placed in possession, and peace again smiled upon the sand-hills.

It was the fashion of purchasers of water-lots to stake off the limits of their submerged lands and fence them in by means of pile-drivers, paying little regard

to the necessities of shipping or the rights of other claimants. This custom led to many fights along the city front, and numberless injunctions and complaints in the courts.

Possession was generally regarded the best title, and to obtain or hold possession a resort to arms was of daily occurrence. In acquiring or maintaining title to the water-lots of Yerba Buena cove, the pile-driver was an important agent; superseding Irishmen, it fenced city blocks in the bay, and if dispossessed, fell back upon strategy to maintain possession. A certain block, for example, was wholly enclosed on three sides, and on the fourth the fence of piles was open only sufficient to admit a vessel. Just within this entrance were stationed two store ships, green water-dragons guarding possession, and keeping the pile-driver away from what it had with so much difficulty enclosed. Either the vessels must be carried by a storming party, and the aperture closed by the pile-driver, or they must be cut loose and turned adrift in the dead of the night. In this instance both devices were used and a long list of fights and law-suits followed.

Hiram Pearson and F. Lawson were, on the 21st of September, 1853, accused before the recorder of assault with deadly weapons while attempting to take possession of a water lot. Pearson was discharged and Lawson held for trial. The contending parties, it appears, had fought in boats, one of which, an old hulk called the Bethel, Lawson scuttled, intending to sink it on the lot and so maintain possession. Shots were freely fired on both sides, and attempts made to throw each other overboard; but no lives were lost.

One Pinkham, living in April 1864 at the Potrero, thought to enrich his posterity by driving piles so as to enclose a number of overflowed lots in front of the glass-works. Others caught the infection; lines of piles were driven, and lots enclosed at intervals, from Potrero point half way to Steamboat point, and again nearly to the mouth of Mission creek. The desire

AFFAIR AT SAN RAFAEL.

407

for free suburban homesteads, and water-lots without pay, was always prevalent among the land-hungry of San Francisco, and recent grants made by the legislature seemed to have fired afresh their insane desires. The water-lots thus seized belonged to the state, and many piles were driven along the city front for which the greedy grabbers never received visible compensation.

There was a difficulty in Marin county in August 1854, which threatened to assume a serious aspect. Certain mission lands near San Rafael, which had been set apart by the Mexican authorities for religious purposes, were seized and staked off by an organized band of squatters, who determined to hold the property vie et armis. One wing of the mission buildings at San Rafael was, in 1849, used as a church, and the other as court and jury rooms; other apartments were occupied by Mexican families with their dogs, hogs, and cattle. By order of the alcalde, William Reynolds, the city was surveyed in 1850 and laid off in town lots with a Mexican title. The price of lots was fixed at thirty dollars each, and a day appointed by the alcalde for the sale, the first applicant to receive the first choice. A great rush was made for lots by those who had failed to make their fortunes in San Francisco sand-hills; but the town, developing more slowly than was anticipated, many of them were allowed to fall into the hands of the tax-gatherer. The land in dispute bordered upon the town, and was part of the old mission orchard and vineyard, which had been neglected by the church and by its rightful owners for many years, and had at length fallen a prey to preëmptors. On the 7th of August the church party, to the number of about twenty-five, appeared against the squatters with sticks and staves, and drove them from their shores.

So habituated had the people of California become to trusting only to themselves for the accomplishment of their purpose, that mob law became the too frequent

arbiter of important civil cases, especially in the settlement of squatter disputes, and in swindles affecting the general public. Whatever was wrongfully accomplished by law, the people who had learned to look upon themselves as above the law, deemed it incumbent upon them to make right, and this they did in the surest and most direct manner.

A

The town of Oakland was thrown into a state of great excitement on the 27th of August, 1853, arising from the claims of Carpentier, Moore, and others to the long line of water property along the front. meeting was held and resolutions passed repudiating these claims, and determining to divide such property equitably among the people. This, with the assistance of club and pistol, they proceeded to do. Two hundred and fifty citizens signed a pledge to stand by each other at all hazards. Then at it they went. Business was suspended; fighting was free to all; and the result was that Carpentier's men were beaten and ignominiously driven from the field.

Nowhere did the energy and audacity of the squatters assume greater proportions than on the lands of John A. Sutter, in the Sacramento valley. Sutter's claim was beyond all question valid. He was the pioneer in this region. He had received from the Mexican authorities a genuine grant, in due time confirmed by the United States government. He built a fort, cultivated the soil, and raised flocks and herds. If there were anywhere rights and conditions entitled to respect by immigrants, they were here present.

The 14th of August, 1850, witnessed a serious affray between the citizens and an organized band of squatters composed of emigrants who had taken up claims on unoccupied lands in and adjoining Sacramento. It appears that a case had lately been tried and decided against the squatters, the judge denying an appeal. This decision, together with what they deemed an illegal attempt on the part of an inferior court to make it final, so exasperated the squatters

BLOODY AFFRAY IN SACRAMENTO.

409

that they held a mass meeting, and declared the state government unlawful and the authorities not to be obeyed. Two of their number were arrested, charged with rebellion, and lodged in the prison brig. On the day above mentioned forty armed men, under a mounted leader, marched through the streets down to the prison brig for the purpose of releasing the prisoners, and also to recover certain lumber of which one of their number had been dispossessed.

Arrived at the levee they found close at their heels a large crowd hooting at them, and making warlike demonstrations. The mayor, sheriff, and other officials were on the spot. Closely pressed by the populace, the squatters wheeled and fired. The mayor, assessor, and a dozen others were struck, several mortally. The fire was returned by the sheriff and his supporters, and continued for about an hour. The leader of the squatters was killed and the band finally dispersed. Thus far five or six only were dead. Next day the sheriff with about twenty men set out in the direction of the fort for the purpose of arresting such squatters as they could find. Stopping at a saloon to drink, the sheriff's party was fired upon by squatters concealed in an adjoining room, and a general melée ensued, in which three, including the sheriff, were killed, several wounded, and four squatters taken prisoners. On receipt of the news, the governor, then at San José, ordered a brigade of militia to proceed to Sacramento and assist in quelling the riot. This uprising of the squatters was condemned on all sides; a torrent of public indignation burst upon them from all parts of the state. For taking up arms against the constituted authorities, there appeared no justification, no palliation. California was not yet a state; the titles to public lands and Mexican grants were ill understood, but a resort to arms was not the way to settle them.

Such, briefly, was the great Sacramento squatter riot of 1850. The squatter party was composed