The development of San Mateo county is greatly due to its proximity to the metropolis, to which it once pertained, as the source for supplies and site for country residences and resorts. Upon its segregation in 1856, the seat of government was assigned to Belmont-where Angelo's hotel formed the initial settlement in 1850-1, and speedily made it the resort for which it is now chiefly famed-but was transferred the same year to Redwood City, whose valuable timber land and water route to the bay obtained for it a predominance which the rival town of San Mateo sought in vain to overcome, like the still less unsuccessful Menlo Park and Ravenswood. On the coast is a farming district supporting two small towns. Capt. A. Smith built the first house at Redwood City; ship-building began the same year, and a squatter raid upon Las Pulgas rancho in 1852 brought population, for which W. Shaw opened the first store. Road traffic started wagon-making; mills and tanneries followed. In 1854 it was laid out by J. M. Mezes and named after him, but the familiar appellation Redwood prevailed, and was affirmed by the charter of 1867. Cal. Statutes, 1867-8, 411; 1873-4, 946; Redwood Times, Jan.-March 1879, etc. Population 1,380 in 1880. San Mateo was founded properly in 1863 as a railroad station for the many residents who had their villas there, and was of steady growth, partly as a way-station for Pescadero. In 1874 it was chosen as county seat, but by arbitration the dignity was retained for Redwood. Menlo Park was incorporated in 1874. Ravenswood was founded in 1853 as a shipping-point, but dropped down to a brick-yard. Pescadero, a popular resort, signifies fishing-place; Spanishtown was of gradual growth. The population of the county increased from 3,200 in 1860 to 8,670 in 1880; possessing 669 farms, valued at $7,916,000: produce $716,000; live-stock $511,000. The saw-mill industry was started by C. Brown just prior to the gold excitement.

Alameda ranked in the last census as the most productive agricultural county on the coast, yet it owes much to its position on the bay, and Oakland, the official head, is practically a residence suburb of San Francisco, fitly the consort with balmier air and beauty, and with thriving educational establishments. When the county was organized in 1853, Alvarado became the seat of government as the most central among available settlements, and with a good shipping-place, to which San José mission and other points were tributary. Cal. Statutes, 1853, 319; Id., Jour. Ass., 1853, 692, 699. But political influence gained the privilege soon after for San Leandro, a town with similar advantages, but more attractive in site and appearance, which had to surrender it 20 years later to its powerful neighbor. It was laid out in 1851 as New Haven, by H. C. Smith, who as assemblyman manœuvred the creation of the county and the seat, allowing the lieutenant-governor to rename the place in honor of the Mexican ex-governor. It grew, embraced Union City, and became the chief town of the southern section, with several factories. Wash. Indep., Jan. 5, 1878. In 1850 San Leandro contained only the residence of J. J. Estudillo, the owner of the tract, and a school-house, but agriculture and river traffic gave it impulse. It gained the seat in 1854, but did not actually obtain it till 1856. It assumed incorporation honors in 1872, partly to strengthen itself against Oakland's struggle for the county seat. This dignity was lost, yet the town continues to prosper. Cal. Statutes, 1856,

26; 1871-2, 458; 1873-4, 63. Population 1,370 by 1880. Contra Costa, i. 17. A number of squatters on Estudillo's rancho gathered at San Lorenzo in 1852-3, forming the so-called Squatterville of the census report of 1852, and the manufacture of farming implements was started, with a few adjuncts in the shape of hotels and shops. W. Hayward settled at the place of that name in 1851, and soon engaged in store and hotel keeping. G. Castro, owner of S. Lorenzo grant, laid out the town in 1854, applying the name of his tract, which did not long prevail. The railroad gave it new life, and in 1876 it received a charter. It has two breweries. Population 1,230 in 1880. See Grogan vs Haywards. The adjoining San Lorenzo failed to grow, but Haywards, with its fine situation, rivals it, and in the south the railroads have lifted several stations to share the trade with earlier villages, as Niles, Suñol, Pleasanton, first called Alisal, and Washington Corners, the last the supply-place for San José mission. Newark overshadows Centreville. In the east Livermore holds the advantage. A. Ladd settled there in 1865, and built a hotel, which became the nucleus for Laddville; but the approach of the railroad caused W. Mendenhall to lay out Livermore half a mile westward, and this gained the supremacy and was incorporated in 1876. It was named after R. Livermore, owner of the grant, whose adobe dwelling stood a mile and a half northward. Cal. Statutes, 1875-6, 913. Population 850 by 1880. The population of the county increased from 8,930 in 1860 to 62,980 in 1880, with property assessed at $42,822,000, of which $19,527,000 represents the value of 1,520 farms, produce $2,385,000, live-stock $940,000. Saltworks, jute and cotton mills, and a sugar factory figure among the industries.

Beyond the range northward a number of small towns nestle in the valleys tributary to the bays of San Pablo and Suisun, beginning with Lafayette, of ante-aurum quietude, founded in 1847 by E. Brown, with the first grist-mill in the county, in 1853, followed by Walnut Creek, Danville, Concord, and other towns, and culminating in Martinez, which, disappointed in its aspirations like the opposite Benicia, had to rest content with the position of peaceful county seat for Contra Costa. It was laid out in 1849 by W. M. Smith, as agent for the Martinez family owning the grant. Larkin's Doc., vii. 134; Sac. Transcript, Nov. 14, 1850. N. Hunsaker erected the first building, and

T. A. Brown the first store. In 1850-1 the owner of the Welch rancho laid out a large addition to the prospective metropolis. After an attempt at incorporation in 1851 a charter was obtained in 1876. Cal. Statutes, 1875-6, 822. Warehouses and salmon canneries helped to sustain it. The entrepôt trade of the valleys was largely absorbed by different shipping points, as Point Pinole and Port Costa, a wheat-shipping place and ferry station for the railroad. Depth of shore water caused it to be selected. The ferry slip was completed in 1879, shipments beginning soon after. At Pinole and round the point are powder-works. The inland Pacheco, on Walnut Creek, with warehouses and flour-mill, was laid out in 1860 on the strength of existing warehouses and trade, and named after S. Pacheco. Antioch, the second town of the county, was the centre for the fertile San Joaquin district. It was first known as Smith's Landing, after J. H. and W. W. Smith, who settled there in 1849, and christened Antioch in 1851. In 1852-3 came brick-making and a store. It grew slowly till the coal developments gave it energy, and enabled it to

incorporate in 1872. Population 620 in 1880. Antioch had a share in the traffic of the coal-mining villages of Nortonville, Somersville, and Judsonville. The chief delivery stations for these important mines are, however, at Pittsburg and at New York, which was started with great flourish early in 1849 as a rival of San Francisco, but failed to rise above a hamlet. It has an interest in the fish canneries, which, with powder-works, figure among the supplementary industries of this coal and farming county. The census of 1852 ascribes to it 317,000 bushels of grain, 85,000 bushels of potatoes, and 51,000 head of stock. By 1880 the population had increased from 2,780 to 12,520, with 885 farms valued at $6,713,000, produce $1,377,000, stock $597,000. Pittsburg has been referred to as Black Diamond, which properly adjoins it. New York of the Pacific was laid out by Col Stevenson and W. C. Parker, and surveyed by Gen. Sherman. See his Mem., i. 73-4; Colton's Three Years, 417; Buffum's Six Mo., 150; Taylor's Eldorado, i. 217; ii. 48; McCollum's Cal. The latter two scout at its aspirations, yet Cal. Courier, Nov. 2, 1850, still assumes that it will become a port for S. Joaquin Valley. Members of the Kennebec Trading Co. settled here. Boynton's Stat., MS., 1; Hayes' Orig. Doc., 3-4; Friend, 1849, ii.; Pico, Doc., i. 207. The Smith brothers built the first house, and a few more rose upon the numerous lots disposed of during the excitement started by the projectors. After 1850 it was recognized as a failure. Two canneries were established there.

CHAPTER XX.

MEXICAN LAND TITLES.

1851-1887.

THE COLONIZATION SYSTEM-LAND GRANTS BY SPAIN AND MEXICO-INFORMALITIES OF TITLE-TREATY OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES-ErFECT OF THE GOLD DISCOVERY-THE SQUATTERS-REPORTS OF JONES AND HALLECK-DISCUSSIONS IN CONGRESS-FRÉMONT, BENTON, AND GWINTHE ACT OF 1851-THE LAND COMMISSION-PROGRESS AND STATISTICS OF LITIGATION- PRINCIPLES-FLOATING GRANTS-SURVEYS-FRAUDULENT CLAIMS-SPECIMEN CASES-CASTILLERO FRÉMONT-GOMEZ-LI

MANTOUR-PERALTA-SANTILLAN-SUTTER-VALLEJO-MISSION LANDS -FRIARS, NEOPHYTES, AND CHURCH-PICO's SALES - ARCHBISHOP'S CLAIM-PUEBLO LANDS-THE CASE OF SAN FRANCISCO-STATISTICS OF 1880-MORE OF SQUATTERISM-BLACK AND JONES-ATTEMPTS TO REOPEN LITIGATION-GENERAL CONCLUSIONS-THE ACT OF 1851 OPPRESSIVE AND RUINOUS-WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE.

THE subject of Mexican land titles in California is one that with concise treatment might fill a volume. Any one of its dozen leading phases would require much more space than this chapter affords. Yet I give it all the space permitted by a symmetrical plan, taking into consideration its historical importance in comparison with other matters; and I try to present a comprehensive and satisfactory view.

The annals of colonization in California under Spanish and Mexican rule, with sufficient explanation of the land-grant system at successive periods, are given in earlier volumes.1 At no time before 1846 had it

1 For instruc. to Com. Rivera y Moncada in 1773 on distribution of lands, see i. 216, Hist. Cal., this series; on pueblo founding, progress, and regulations down to 1800, i. 311-14, 336-8, 343–50, 388-9, 503-4, 564–72, 600-6; general remarks on tenure of lands, with names of early grants to 1800, i. 607-18, 661-3, 717; on ranchos of 1801-10, ii. 111-12, 146, 153, 170-3; on grants of 1811-20, (529)

HIST. CAL., VOL. VI. 34

been so difficult for citizens to obtain farms as for the government to find settlers for its lands. The original Spanish occupation of 1769 was a colonization scheme, the presidio being a temporary device to protect settlements during the process of development, and the mission another expedient to fit the natives for settlers and citizens; ultimately, and soon as was vainly hoped, California was to be a country of towns and farms occupied by descendants of the soldiers, civilized Indians, and settlers of various races from abroad, the whole a community of tribute-paying, God-fearing, Spanish citizens. Three pueblos were founded as nuclei, and naturally for many years the only distribution of lands was in the form of town lots; but after 1786, if not before, the governor could grant ranchos. No such grants were made before 1800, though fifteen or twenty farms were occupied under provisional licenses. About a dozen more were occupied before 1822, the end of Spanish rule, some of them under formal grants; and in the first decade of Mexican independence the number was increased to about fifty in 1832. From the advent of Governor Figueroa in 1833, under the Mexican colonization law of 1824 and the reglamento of 1828, land grants numbered on an average fifty-three each year to 1846, when the total number was nearly 800.2 It is to be noted also that most of the Spanish grants were renewed under Mexican forms, being in some instances conferred on the heirs of the original occupants.

ii. 353-4, 375, 383, 414-15, including decree of '13 on reduction of lands to private ownership; grants of '21-30, ii. 546–7, 565-6, 592-4, 612-16; gen. account to '30, with list of 50 ranchos, ii. 661-5; colonization law of '24 and reglamento of '28, ii. 515–16; iii. 34-5; grants of '31-40 in the 5 districts, iii. 611-12, 633-4, 655-6, 676-8, 711-13; grants of '41-5; iv. 620-1, 634-5, 642-3, 655-6, 670-4; grants of '46, v. 619, 627-8, 632, 637-8, 659-60, 665, 669, 675; also local annals of the 3 pueblos, passim. The references to i. 607 -18 and ii. 661-5 are of chief importance for present purposes.

2 These figures, taken after 22 from the Land Com. record in Hoffman's Reports of '62, are only approximately correct, as some of the larger ranchos were presented to the com. in several subdivisions. According to this list, the number of grants to 1800 was 13, and to '22 was 27, which figures amount to nothing, as most of the Spanish grants were renewed in Mex. times, and presented under the regrant, while others were subdivided; no. for '23-32, 11; 33, 25; 34, 33; '35, 31; '36, 37; '37, 27; '38, 43; '39, 59; '40, 37; '41, 61; '42, 51, 43, 64; '44, 122; '45, 68; '46, 87; no date, 20.