from the state and union valuable water lots; but the extent and validity of these grants were quickly assailed under the shadow of legal decisions. Irregularities had also crept in, by permitting one purchaser to acquire many lots; by the sale of land through jus- · tices of the peace in opposition to the council; by the Peter Smith execution sales; and by the vagueness involving several early grants within the city limits.3 With such favorable opportunities the many landsharks afflicting the country ventured to nibble at the choice peninsula, and so rose successively, in 1850–3, the claims of Stearns and Sherreback to sections south of Market street, of Santillan to three leagues of land radiating from the Mission, and of Limantour to four leagues around the central part of the city, and including many of the settled blocks. All except the first received such confirmations by courts and land commission as to rouse consternation among property holders.*.

the intersection of Brannan and Fifth streets over the summit of Lone Mountain to the ocean. In 1860 the four-league claim was conceded by the circuit court, and five years later yielded by congress, but with the condition that the land not needed for public or federal reservation purposes, or not disposed of, should be conveyed to the parties in possession. This confirmation to a few large holders of valuable pueblo domains was inconsistent with the original Mexican pueblo law and its general acceptance by the U. S.; but the Clement and McCoppin ordinances affirmed the alienation, and the city gained little more than a park of sand hills under the decree. For city and county boundaries, see notes on city charters.

2 Gen. Kearny in 1847, perhaps unauthoritatively, relinquished to the town the U. S. claim to the pueblo lots and beach and water lots, which were not conveyed under Mexican laws, and the state by act of March 26, 1851, ceded for 99 years all rights to beach and water lots against 25 per cent on sale money, previous sales being confirmed. By act of May 1, 1854, the state proposed to cede such lots forever, on condition that the city should confirm to holders certain other lots, such as the obnoxious Colton grants. This was declined; but in 1852 interested speculators prevailed on the alderman to accept the proposition. Mayor Harris, however, sustained by the indignant people, succeeding in having this act repealed. Concerning water lots, see Cal. Jour. House, 1851, p. 1329-33, 1853, p. 694-5; Id., Ass., 1854, ap. 9, etc.; 1855, ap. 9; 1856, 66-76; 1858, 503-6; Id., Sen., 1855, 84-6, 482-3; 1859, 23-4; S. F. Manual, 204-9.

3 To Bernal, Guerrero, etc., which in due time were confirmed. The Smith sales are spoken of later.

See chapter on land titles. Limantour, Bird's-eye View, 1-24; U. S. vs Limantour, with photographs of documents; U. S. Gov. Doc., Cong. 39, Sess. 1, Sen. Rept 92. See also newspaper notices, especially at the time of the several pleadings and decisions, till 1859, when it was finally rejected, together with the Santillan claim. The latter was made additionally interest

As a natural result of the irregularities and conflicting decisions, almost any concocted or presumed title could be made available for temporary possession, and so squatters began to overrun the city, seizing upon every desirable unimproved lot, even upon public squares and cemeteries, perhaps fencing it during a night, and bidding armed defiance to the original owners; at times backed by a squad of ruffianly retainers. Pitched battles with bloodshed became frequent, but judges could not interfere effectually, nor would juries convict a presumed owner for defending his property. This impaired confidence and hindered improvements, and with the prospect of a usury bill, lenders of money for such purposes held back, so that the value of real estate was seriously reduced, falling from about seventeen million dollars in 1850-1 to eleven millions in 1851-2.6

The title to water lots was fortunately settled in 1851, and their value rapidly advanced, until four small blocks on Commercial street sold for over a mil-. lion dollars in December 1853,' when speculation and

ing from the purchase by the vigilance committee of 1856 of documents relating to the Mission lands through A. A. Green, and subsequent litigation for the money. See Green's Life, MS., 30-85; S. F. Herald, March 28, 1857; S. F. Bulletin, July 21, 1857; Jan. 27, 1859; July 19, 1860; S. F. Post, June 28, Aug. 21, 1878, etc.; S. F. Call, etc.; S. F. Post, June 19, 1878; and notably the testimony of Coleman, Vig., MS., 120 et seq., and Dempster, Vig., MS., 1 et seq., the vigilance leaders. The Gulnac, Rincon Point, Point Lobos, Colton grants, were among minor claims. Although the Sherreback confirmation decree was vacated in 1860, claimants long harassed holders, while the Santillan speculators were seeking compensation from the government. The Stearns claim was early rejected.

5 Speculators hired men to hold possession till they could by legal quibbling and bribery acquire legal right. The lot where later stood the Grand Hotel was the scene of lively encounters, as related by Farwell, Stat., MS., 10. See also Annals S. F., 456-7, 540-1. Property holders formed in 1854 an association for protecting themselves. Capt. Folsom's lots were especially exposed to seizures.

6 Values and fluctuations are considered by Williams, Rec., MS., 7; Clark, Stat., MS., 1; Olney, Stat., MS., 2-3; see also Alta Cal., S. F. Herald, etc.

This sale proved the means for one of the numerous raids upon the city treasury. The owners of the Sacramento and Commercial st wharves claimed that the blocks had been intended for a dock, to the advantage of their property, and were appeased with $185,000 of the sale money. Soon after paying most of the instalment money, values fell with the spreading business depression, and the buyers picked a flaw in the title, on the ground of an insufficient vote for the sale ordinance. Although this ordinance was confirmed and the flaw readily overcome, the courts after five years' litigation decided

THE PUEBLO LANDS.

8

759

business excitement culminated. But influenced by certain speculators who had invested in the Peter Smith execution sales, and by other prospective gains, the assembly in 1853 passed a bill for extending the water-front six hundred feet beyond the line established in 1851, on the ground that state finances sadly needed the one third of the expected six millions of sale money. Seeing little benefit to themselves in this scheme, the city authorities joined the citizens in loud protest against the proposed violation of rights guaranteed to the present front-owners, an infraction which must also injure property holders in general, by involving a costly change of grade for drainage, and imperil the port by driving vessels beyond the existing headland shelter. The clamor had the effect of equalizing votes in the senate, so that Lieutenant-governor Purdy's casting vote was able to defeat the bill. Interior lots remained longer under a cloud. In 1854, however, the land commissioners confirmed the city title to land north of the Vallejo line, under a mistaken idea as to the extent of the pueblo lines; and in 1855 the Van Ness ordinance assured titles to possessors within the corporate limits of 1851. It took another in favor of the buyers. By this time values had again risen, and now 35 of the buyers compromised by keeping the lots and accepting about one million —or more than they had paid-as compensation, chiefly interest on the partial purchase-money. Encouraged by this success, a few remaining buyers claimed similar restoration; but now an ingenious lawyer found that the instalment money, while received by the city, had not been in legal possession of the treasury, so that it must be sought through some undefined channel. The last claimants evidently lacked means to win over the weather-cock justice for further spoliation. Meanwhile improvements in the region concerned had languished under the litigation. For details, see Coon's Annals, MS., 22 -5; Cal. Jour. Sen., 1856, 608-52, ap. 18; S. F. Rept City Litig., 1-64; Id., Opinions; Sac. Union, Dec. 18, 1856; S. F. Bulletin, Oct. 28, 1859; Alta Cal., Aug. 7, 1866, etc. These authorities refer also to state sales, in Dec. 1853 for $350,000, in March and June 1854 for $241,100, and $100,000 also in 1855, the latter especially being unfairly managed with a loss to the state, and with a cloud upon titles.

& Roach, Stat., MS., 15-16, points to Guerra's vote as having tied the measure. The prospective cost to the state of building a breakwater had its effect on votes. Protests, etc., in S. F. Remonst., 1-8; S. F. Hist. Incid., viii.; Cal. Jour. Sen., 1853, 629-30, ap. no. 28-31, 41, 49, 65, 74; Id., Ass., 1854, 15-18, 652; Alta Cal., Apr. 13, 1853; May 4, 1854, etc. The bill was revived, but in vain. See also Farwell's Stat., MS., 4-6; Purkitt's Letter on Water Front, 1-32; S. F. Bulletin, Apr. 16, May 1, 5, 7, June 12-16, 1856; West. Amer., Jan. 31, 1852.

decade to obtain recognition for the city of the usual four-league grant under Mexican laws, and the several claims of Sherreback, Santillan, and Limantour hav ing by this time been finally rejected, additional ordinances confirmed also outside holdings, and so restored general confidence."

The glaring maleadministration and abuses of the common council of 1850 roused the citizens to an appeal for a remedy, and on April 15, 1851, San Francisco received a new charter, which enlarged her limits half a mile to the south and west, and placed a wholesome check on financial extravagance, 10 notably by reducing or abolishing salaries in every direction, and seeking to restrain the accumulation of debts. The

The final decree of confirmation was issued in 1867 through the circuit court, and in 1867-8 the Stratton survey was made in accordance. Concerning city titles in general, see also Pioneer Mag., i. 193, 257, 321, etc.; S. F. vs U. S., Doc., etc., 1–70; S. F. Miscel.; Tilford's Argument, 1-17; Browne's Stat., MS., 15. Among journals, Alta Cal. is especially full of comments about the dates of decisions, as indicated in preceding references. In Biart's Rambles, 81-6, is the story of the fate of a S. F. claimant. Among claims lately surviving is one by settlers for the govt reservation at Point San José. See S. F. Bulletin, June 17, 1878. Coon's efforts for promoting the settlement of titles are highly creditable. Annals, MS., 28-31.

10 Boundaries: on the south, a line parallel with Clay st, two miles and a half distant from Portsmouth square; on the west, a line parallel with Kearny st, two miles distant from Portsmouth square; on north and south, same as county. The wards remained eight in number, but with redistriction to equalize the number of their inhabitants. Officials remained unchanged, except that the two assessors for each ward were changed into a total of three for the city. The first election under this charter was to take place in April, and thereafter annually at the general election for state officers. No debts were permitted to accrue which together with former debts should exceed the annual revenue by $50,000, unless for specific objects, authorized by popular votes, and duly provided for, in interest and redemption, within 12 years. Loans in anticipation of the year's revenue could not exceed $50,000. Loans for extinguishing existing debts, etc., must be authorized by the people, and early steps taken for funding such debts. Creditors of the city might fund the debts due them, at a rate of interest not exceeding ten per cent, and payable within ten years. The net proceeds of city real estate and bonds, from the occupation of private wharves and basins, wharfage, rents, and tolls, to constitute a sinking fund for the debt. Salaries of charter officers not to exceed $4,000 a year, the treasurer and collector receiving instead of salary not over half per cent and one per cent respectively on money handled by them; assessors, not exceeding $1,500 each. Aldermen received no compensation. No clerks and deputies were allowed beyond the number stated by the charter. Further details in Cal. Comp. Laws, 1853, 944–55. Compare above and other salary changes with the allowances for 1850-1 of $64,000 to 16 aldermen, $8,000 or $10,000 each to the leading officials, from $4,000 to $5,000 each to a host of clerks (now reduced to $2,000 and less), showing a salary list for the city of more than $800,000 prior to this charter.