B 3 114 705 I í h« •h Kl* M III Imi [»ti lia: imi K OH Vai Ut «il ¡III iiar 0*1 mi ai 1 *¡1 , ili III i sa tu an in Si! si! s: z; s 5! Sì: ■gii £:i ¡Sii ¡pii ii*il ¡¡feil l£«l !«!! till! Ili; ¡IIH <*fl¡ lili 3S*< «Ìli •a«i lili Vati lili lai: lili •agi lili I »»i fail ••• jail: I IBI •mi piai. ■Ill Ititi' mu ■•(•a mu laiagi mil laaai Hill ¡•i»« Itili Miai Mill till mil •mi «III *1*1 ■«*• »titi iai«i Ititi >M'«| !«:«» lai»* IMMaS •*>»i Itati *■>«> inti !*»ai Ititi iSiii ibik! mm {»•i •ti ■t> *■ llllTHE GENESIS OF CALIFORNIA COUNTIES By OWEN C. COY, Ph.D., Director of the Commission Publication of the CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL SURVEY COMMISSION BERKELEY, 1923 24900t « Y I * Z ■ Çopyr^gîit .* t « By Owen e. Cót. 1923 * * * CA.LTFORNIA STATE PRINTING OFFICE FRANK J. SMITH. Superintendent SACRAMENTO. 1923LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To His Excellency, Friend W. Richardson, Governor, Sacramento, California. Sir: Herewith we present The Genesis of California Coun- ties giving a history of the division of the state into counties from the time of the formation of the state to the present date. This small volume is issued as a preliminary to the larger publication, California County Boundaries, which will take up in greater detail the history of the boundaries of the individual counties. Respectfully submitted, CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL SURVEY COMMISSION. John F. Davis, Chairman. Herbert E. Bolton. Edward A. Dickson. Owen C. Coy, Director. Berkeley, California, January 15, 1923.PREFACE The obje<|k of this volume is to present a brief but compre- hensive account the formation of the counties of California. Beginning with the first legislature, in 1849, which divided the state into twenty-seven counties, the agitation for new counties and for county boundary changes has continued down to the present time, when there are fifty-eight counties, with consequent radical changes in boundary lines. The work of recording the history this development was begun while the author was engaged in the survey of the county archivesjdf the stateKifvhe perceived at that time how vitally changes in county boundaries and hence in county jurisdictions affect the scope, location and significance of archives. For publiqafitoii in his Guide to County prepared maps showing the successive boundary changes fo^each county. Furtherstffdy opened up additional problems.^51 was found that the portion of the Political Code defining edpnty bound- aries had not bafl adequately revised since its adoption in 1872._Data already gathered for the present monograph was therefore usep^^B preparing a bill codifying the county boundary laws, which was introduced into the legislature in 1919. ^Unfortunately, thffligh a senate amendment, a change in boundary wasMicorporateM so notwithstanding that the measurg^^B© a^statut^Bt was on aecMit of this boundary change declared uncpnstiffltional according to an amendment: of 1910 tWhe^^BtitutiM of the 'State of’ California, which prohibi^R the formation ofnew counties and the alteration of county boundary line^^^^^Hs pr.fi videu^for by general and Hdform laws. A measuremending before the present legislature will probably result irifSlie desrredpodification. This study entitled The Genesis of California Counties takes up in chronological order the various changes and proposed changes in the county boundaries and the creation and pro- posals of new pornffies. The text is accompanied by eight state maps showing the counties as they existed at eight dif- ferent periods. A large compositeHiap with a key makes it possible to determine quickly the various counties which have had jurisdiction over any portion of the state, together withthe dates of that jurisdiction. In the preparation of this work, the author has made careful search of both statutes and legis- lative journals, thereby tracing through not only actual legislation but also agitation for new counties and boundaries. In the latter connection, also, valuable information has been drawn from old newspaper files. To locate boundary lines it has often been necessary to ferret out old maps and to carry the research into the local county archives and those of the state departments at Sacramento, as well as those of the United States Surveyor General. Every effort has been made to secure accuracy and completeness of detail. In the earlier years, especially, there were obscurities and inconsistencies in the boundary lines as defined by statute. In such cases, the boundaries have been located on the maps accompanying this volume as nearly as possible in agreement with the legal description and in the light of the descriptions of adjacent county lines and of subsequent legislation when- ever it shed illumination on the early obscurities. A close study of public records and statistics is the first fundamental of all exact history. In California, statistics are almost invariably given in terms of counties, and the county is the important unit in the state hierarchy. Studies of poli- tics, of production, of population, resources and social develop- ments must make use of county archives. But documents can not be located in the county archives, and can not be histori- cally interpreted, unless it is known under what county juris- diction they were made and filed and of what territory and social components they treat. In view of the fact that there are now more than twice the number of counties that origi- nally existed, and that many radical boundary changes have taken place, it will be seen that the matter of locating and interpreting county documents becomes a complex one. The present volume is offered as a solution of that difficulty; as a key to the interpretation of records and figures otherwise difficult of access. The author desires to acknowledge his indebtedness to the many persons without whose help this publication would have been impossible. Professor Herbert E. Bolton has ever been an unfailing source of inspiration and guidance. Mr. Ralph S. Kuykendall, formerly associated with the California His- torical Survey Commission, rendered valuable service and ▼Iadvice. The authorities of the State Library, through the kindness of Mr. M. J. Ferguson, State Librarian, and Miss Eudora Garroutte, of the California Department, furnished help which was received with appreciation. The courtesy of those in charge of the public archives has also greatly facili- tated the work. To Miss Hazel R. Bell and Miss Hester Jordan is due much credit for the careful manner in which they worked on and compared the numerous quotations and references in the earlier stages of the production of this volume; while Miss Jessie H. Davies has assisted most efficiently in the proofreading and has made valuable sugges- tions during the time the work has been in the press. Owen C. Coy. Tii ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Preface __________________________________________________ v List of Maps--------------------------------------------- ix Genesis of California Counties---------------------------- 1 Appendix I: Map of Califo$®aa with Key Showing Changes in County Jurisdiction________________________ 61 Appendix II: History of the Boundaries of Los Angeles County________________________________________________ 73 Index_____________________________________________________ 91 LIST OF MAPS California, 1850 ------:---------------------------- 3 California, 1852 -------------------------------------- 10 California, 1855 -------------------------------------- 14 California, 1860 ----------------------------------- California, ---------------- 34 California, 1880 ______________________________________ 42 California, 189|*!—:----------------------------------- 48 California, 1922 54 California, Showing Changes in County Jurisdiction opp. 70 Los Angeleopp--------------------------------------- Los Angeles-Ventura Boundary________________________ 83THE GENESIS OF CALIFORNIA COUNTIESTHE GENESIS OF CALIFORNIA COUNTIES So long as California was under Spanish rule this terri- juTrywas a pfwmeaof The Castilian empire, and it so ¿untnHSa until?!§22^when it shared in Mexico’s independents The only known attempt made at* establishing anyppolitiH divisions of the territorypunder either th(Bpanish or Mexican regimR was that of two grand prefectures, the prefect of the south residing at Los Angeles and the prefect of the north having his headquarters lit Monterey. Two prefectures were after- ward establish^^m Santa Barbara and San Jose, and in 1829 ayuntamientos^^ffl held at all fou^^Soi^^SL to 1840 tHgM [existed five ‘‘districts”—viz., those of Los Am&neill Santa Barbara, Monterey and San Francisco. The nature or ^boundary of these districts is not certainly known. All the then settled portion of California was included in a nar- row strip along t^^R and neighboring valleys, and||yery- thing east and north of this was largely terra incognita. The conditions of settlement^^^Hd^^^^^^^^^^H the only moderately well defined .division®)eing^^Hrof the missions, pueblos and ranchos. The great change from Mexican to American ownership came in 1846 and immediately the attempt was made to get thing like orde^^R of the chaos—territorial as well as polit- ical. The first ci^^Rutional invention held at Mont^SSR 1849 was composed of forty-eight delegates from tjen districts, which by the Governor were t^^Sof San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Luis (fflspo, Monllieyi San gjii, Sonoma, San Francisco, ^Kj^oaquin and Sacramento. The necessity of something more distinct was at once seen, and one of the first duties of the legislature was to divide the stat^Bito countiH This task was assigned to a committee, Kith General ValHo as ^Rirman. The bulk of thjiwork was left to the General, who was rightly supposed to be an author- ity on geography, population and nomenclature. Report of Committee on Counties, 1850. On January 4, 1850, the committee presented its report.1 It point® out some of the diffieultie®l^®itered du^Kyphe lack of maps that correctly indicffi®® location of rivers, mountains and other natural landmarks. It admi|te®that many of the counties 1Senate Journal, JRsess. f|RR|^v£?arThe Report is giAjHgfi full Appendix E, Ibid., 411-19.2 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. were of great extent, but explained that this was due to the sparse population. It was also pointed out that the committee had avoided forming any counties entirely of mining districts on account of the transitory character of the mining popula- tion. The report of the committee embraced the boundaries of eighteen counties as follows: San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, San Francisco, San Jose, Mount Diablo, Sonoma, Benicia, Sacramento, Sutter, Butte, Beading, Fremont, San Joaquin, Oro and Mariposa. For the southern half of'the state the boundaries of the six counties as proposed were approximately as later adopted by statute. These were San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey and Mariposa. In the north, on the other hand, many changes were m’ade. The first of these changes were introduced by the committee itself in a subsequent report made after the various delega- tions of the legislature had presented their wishes and opinions to the committee.2 Since petitions asking for a separate county had beSn^ received from the people of Santa Cruz, upon the recommendation of the delegates from Monterey and San Jose that district was set off as a separate county. The names of several of the proposed countiHwere also changed as follows: Tuolumne was adopted in placé of Oro, Solano for Benicia, Yolo for Fremont, and Shasta for Reading. Several additional counties were also proposed, among them being Coloma, Yubu, Coluse, Trinity, Marin and Mendocino. After passing the Senate other changes were made in the Assembly. The section relating to San Francisco was amended giving to that county jurisdiction over the whole of the bay to low water mark along the Marin and Contra Costa shores. The name Contra Costa was substituted for Mount Diablo, as was El Dorado for Coloma.3 The Original Counties, 1850. With these changes the legislature passed an a.ct creating the counties and defining their boundaries which was signed by the Governor, February 18, 1850,4 and became the fifteenth enactment of the Califor- 28enate Journal, 1st Sess. (1849), Appendix F, 420-21. ^Assembly Journal, 1st Sess. (1850), 838-84Through oversight the west boundary of Montra Costa was left» in the middle of the Bay. An attempt was later made to amend this in the interest of San Francisco, but failed. Ibid., 949. ^Statutes, 1850: 58-63.4 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. nia legislature. By this law twenty-seven counties were cre- ated, the listjbeing as follows: San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Branciforte, San Fran- cisco, Santa Clara, Contra.Costa, Marin, Sonoma, Solano, Yola, Napa, Mendocino, Sacramento, El Dorado, Sutter, Yuba, Butte, Colusi, Shasta, Trinity, Calaveras, San Joaquin, Tuolumne, and Mariposa. In adopting this law many additional counties I had been created and the legislature had disregarded in many \ I cases the committals recommendation tjhat mining districts should not be organized as separat^^^Hes. That this act did ] not please all sections of the state is sfi$n in the effort at amend- ment which was made almost immediately afte^/ft was signed.5 It was properly claimed that many of the boundaries especially those of Sonoma, Solano and Napa were indefinite and even additional counties were urged. The Senate Committee favored changes relating to San Francisco, Santa Clara, Contra Costa and Yola, but felt that to go further was “unnecessary and inexpedient, ’ ’ for, although the boundaries were indefinite, they were the best that could be done at the time and where thgy were indefinite the country was sparsely s^tllfdy if occu- pied at all. They^^ra that the four adcHonal counties pro- posed—Aveno, Leco, Molino and P^p^^M^re not justified by the population of the districts.6 Two amendatory acts were finally passed. One of these changed the namefflf¿Branciforte to Santa Cruz, of Yola to Yolo and redefined tlHboundaries of San Francisco, Santa Clara, Contra Costa and Yolo.7 The H|||e£act changed th^^Hity seats in Calaveras and Tuolumne counties.8 County Nomenclature. The names of these counties were with two exceptions derived from the Spanish or Indian lan- guages. One ofi tfthgb exceptions, SuttH was named for the . pioneqr the Sacramento Valley, General Jcffl A. Sut- ter ; the other, Butt&j a word of French origin, was applied to the upper Sacramento Valley on a|||!mn& of the Buttes, so R«y thej|plich-Canadian trappers of the Hudson Bay Company since about 182$] Realizing the interest that would be taken in knowing why the names of the counties were selected 5Assem^S Journal, ls&Sess. (1850), 902, 908, 949, 1144. Yolo was later substituted fofo^Ybla,” the form “Colusi” persisted as late as 1857. 6Senate Journal, 1st Sess. (1850). Appendix JJ, 556-558. (Report, Manga 6, 1850). 7Statutes, 1850: 155-156. •Ibid., 262-3.COUNTY NOMENCLATURE. 5 as thej£|vere, the senate reque^lM General Vallejo to pre- sent to that body a report upon the derivation and definition Ed the names of the several ccnfflBs^ This report takes up in detail each of the twenty-seven coun- ties. San Diego (St. James), Los AngelesHOur Lady of] the Angels), Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo (St. Luis, the Bish- op), Santa Cruz (Holy Cross), San Francisco (St. Francis), and Santa Clara all obtained their names from older Spanish settlements or missions. The religious influence in Spanish nomenclature is also shown in the names Sacramento (Holy Sacrament), San Joaquin (St. Joachim, supposed father of Mary), and Trinity (Trinidad). Others were given Spanish names with some special significance. Among these Monterey (The Royal Forest or Mountain) was named for Count Mon- terey, viceroy of Mexico. Contra Costa (Opposite Coast) was chosen to describe the shore opposite San Francisco in prefer- ence to the name originally suggested, Mount Diablo (the Devil’s Mountain). Mendocino was given to the cape in honor of Antonio de Mendoza, viceroy of New Spain. El Dorado (the Golden) was applied by the early Spanish to a fabulous land of gold. The name was quite appropriately applied to that county in which gold was first discovered. Yuba obtained its name from the river which, because of the abundance of wild grapes |jfflvas) was so named. Calaveras was the name applied to the river by Captain Moraga early in the century because of the great number of skulls found in that vicinity. Mariposa, signifying “Butterfly” was thus named by the Spanish explorers in 1807 because of the great clusters of but- terflies found by them in the foothills of the Sierras. Most of*rit|tfl other names which are not Spanish in origin are derived from the Indian dialects. Marin was the chieftain of the Indians inhabiting the region. Sonoma was the Indian name applied to the valley in which the town of that nqme was situated. It signified “Valley of the Moon.” Solano was the name applied to the most northerly of the Spanish missions and was derived from the name of the chief of the Suisun Indians. Yqlq was an Indian term meaning “Abounding in Rushes,” similar to the Spanish “Tulares” for the marshy dis- trict of the southern valley. Napa, Coluse, or Colusi, and Shasta were the names of the Indian tribes occupying those 2—249006 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. respective districts. Tuolumne is a corruption of the Indian term tal malamne, meaning a group of stone wigwams. New Comities of 1851—Nevada, Placer, Trinity and Kla- math. Conditions in 1851 already tended to justify the re- port of the Committee of 1850, for their statement that they could not then fix all the boundaries in a definite manner was found correct, as was also their suggestion that the increasing population would, by extending the settled area, create a de- mand for new counties and at the same time assist in determin- ing more definitely the proper location for county boundaries. During the year 1850 there had been a continuous growth of population in the mining area particularly in the Sierra Nevadas between the American and Yuba rivers and in the mines along the Trinity and Klamath rivers. Early in the ses- sion the peoplBf Trinity requested that their county which had been attached to Shasta County be immediately organized as a separate county with the seat of justice at Trinidad. A bill to this purpose was introduced and passed both houses but was later withdrawn because superseded by a more com- prehensive county boundary bill.9 In a similar manner a peti- tion from residents of Yuba County was presented to the assembly requesting the division of that county.10 Still another petition asked the subdivision of Sutter County.11 As the result of this agitation an act was passed providing for the organization of Trinity County and the creation and organization of three new counties, Klamath, Nevada and Placer.B Klamath was created from the northern half of Trinity and included all that part of the Klamath Water- shed which lies within the boundary of California. Nevada was organized out of the eastern part of Yuba County. Its name (“Snow-covered”) is of Spanish origin and was probably taken from the well known mountain range. Placer to the south of Nevada was created from parts of Yuba and Sutter counties. Its name was derived from the Spanish term placer, applied to the mines from which the early miners obtained their wealth. •Legislative JournalI 2d Sess. (1851®L15, 126, 1051, 1129, 1688. "Ibid1103, 1114. nIbid.3 1081. 12Statutes, 1851: 516. For description of the boundaries of these indi- vidual counties see later under each county.BOUNDARY CHANGES, 1851. 7 Other Changes, 1851. In addition to the act relating to the four counties named another act defining in full the boundaries of the several counties was passed, revising the law of 1850. In this revision the lines of many of the counties were more or less changed, many of the changes being of lit- tle significance. Important changes were, however, made in , the boundaries of Los Angeles and Colusi counties. The great- est change was made in Los Angeles County which according to the terms of the act of 1850 had been one of the smaller counties.^ By the act of 1851 it was greatly enlarged at the expense of both San Diego on the south and Mariposa on the north. Its western and northern boundary was made to in- clude San Fernando, Tejon, and Tehachapi passes while its southern included the settlements around San Juan Capistrano and ran from that point eastward across the desert. The whole of the desert back country to the staH boundary was included iri: Los Angeles County.13 The territory of Colusi County was changed largely at the expense of her neighbor, Yolo, the boundary between these two counties being shifted southward some twenty-five miles.14 Other changes were moreH^ way of definition of boundary lines rather than territorial changes. Among the more im- portant were those S San Luis; Obispo which were changed both on the north and south thus affecting Monterey and Santa Barbara, ¿a slight change in the southern line of Shasta, one in the northern line of Sutter, and an adjustment of the line between San Joaquin and Contra Costa counties.15 Creation of Siskiyou, Sierra and Tulare Counties, 1852. During the third session (Othe legislature ther£ was much debate regarding the formation of new counties and the ad- justment of county boundaries. Out of a number of counties proposed three new ones were actually created, namely Sis- kiyou, Sierra and Tulare. Siskiyou was formed by taking from Shasta and Klamath counties. Its chief settled area was along the Klamath River with Scotts Valley and Shasta Plains attached to it. This division was the logical result of the development of mining in those parts, and was made neces- lSFor more exact descriptions see Los Angeles, San Diego and Mariposa counties. 14See Colusa County boundaries. 15For these changes see the descriptions of the individual counties.8 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. sary by the high Shasta Mountains dividing the Klamath streams from those of tlf^ Sacramento. The name was re- ported to have been derived in the following manner :16 “The French name Six Cailloux was given a ford on the Umpqua river, at which place Michael La Frambois, with a party Hudson Bay trappers, crossed in the year 1832. Six large stones lay in the river where they crossed and they gave it the name of Six Cailloux, or Six Stone Ford; and from this, the mountain *fc6ok its name —Six Stone Mountain. 11 Sierra County was curated from the eastern or mining district of Yuba Couhty, being therefore the third mining county to be detached entirely or largely from Yuba County.17 The name with that of its southern neighbor was taken from the mountain range upH whose summit these counties lie. Tulare, the other county created in 1852, was formed by a division of the large Mariposa County, more than one-half of the southern portion of county being thus separately organized as a new cHnty. This county included all that area north and east of the Coast Range Mountains, and from the Tehachapi Mountains on the south to and, including the Kings River watershed on the north.18 The name was taken from the large lake surrounded by tule marshes which to the Spanish speaking people suggested the name Tulares for this region. Boundary Adjustments, 1852. Several boundaries were shifted in order to make them more definite or because of some local demand for change. The northern boundary of Napa, common to Mendocino, which had been very imperfectly described in 1850 and 1851 was by an act at this session more accurately defined along a line running through Clear Lake.19 The northern line of Sutter, changed in 1851, was again shifted in 1852 with but slight difference in its loca- tion.20 Another change was made in jpjpnorthern line of Nevada County; wmffieby that county was enlarged by a few square Tniles at the expense of the newly created Sierra ieSenate Journal, 3d Sess. (1852), 314. A different derivation is given in San Francisco Alta California, May 7^K|>2JH 17For description of the boundaries see map and description of Sierra County. 18See map and description of Tulare County. 18Statutes, 1852 : 192. See map and description of Napa County. tolbid., 237. See map and description of Sutter County.PAUTAH COUNTY. 9 CountyH An attempt was made to take Mare Island from Sonoma and place it with Solano, off whose mainland the Island lay, but the act was awkwardly drawn and resulted in excluding it from both counties.22 A more definite description involving an unimportant change was made in the line between San Joaquin and Contra Costa,23 and another in the San Luis Obispo-Santa Barbara boundary.24 Pautah County, 1852-1859. That the legislators of Cali- fornia did not consider themselves circumscribed by state boundaries is to H seen in their passage of an act the creating of Pautah County from territory entirely beyond the bounds of the State of California. Many settlers from Cali- fornia and others bound »fH California had taken up their abode in the valleys the Truckee, Carson and Walker rivers adjoining the eastern boundary of California. Although this was a part of the territory of Utah, it was near the min- ing region of California and being on the routes of the oY^? land trails had much in common with this s^^fl Two meas- ures dealing with this proposed county were introduced into the assembly, one of which became a law and remained upon the statute books until its repeal in 1859. The boundaries of Pautah County were defined as follows:25 “'Commencing at the northeast corner of Sierra County, thence flja southeasterly direction to the northeast ex- H|j|tremi|ysof Pyramid Lake; thence in a southeast line to the northwestern boundary of Carson Lake; thence run- ning Hath tq&the eastern border „of Walker Lake, fol- lowing said border to He southern limit of said Lake; thence^ in a southwesterly direction to the soimieast cor- ner of Calaveras County; thehce^following the eastern boundary of Calaveras, El Dorado, Placer, Nevada and Sierra counties to the place beginning. ’ ’ The act declared that “ Carsonville ’ ’ should be the seat of HjffifehC and further provided! that the act should take effect when the Congress of the United StHsSiiad ceded to the State of California the territory described in the act. aStatutes, 1852 : 190, 191. *Ibid., 236. ™Ibid., 178. **Ibid., 218. xIbid., 1852: 193 ; 1859: 186.0«>*><>n3W CALIFORNIA-18 52. I I Or io i N At Counties, 1650 Counties CIbid., 1853;119. 30Senate Journal, 3d Sess. (1852), 58. 81Statutes, 1853: 161. S2Ibid., 20. nibid., 53-4.12 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. attempts were made to secure further changes. Petitions from inhabitants of Butte and Sutter asked that they be annexed to Colusi.34 Mendocino, still attached to Sonoma, desired sep- aration.35 The agitation was also continued for the forma- tion of a new county to he formed from portions of Calaveras and other counties, to which was to be applied the name “Mokelumne.”36 A division of Tuolumne and Mariposa was also desired by other petitioners.37 Plumas, Amador and Stanislaus, 1854. Three new coun- ties were created in 1854, two mining counties and one an agricultural county. The first of these to be created was Plu- mas. It was detached from Butte County and included the headwaters of the Feather River. The name was taken from the Spanish name for the river, Rio de las Plumas. The in- terest 'of the district was primarily mining. On account of the great growth of 1® population in the mines of this re- gion and its remoteness from the county seat in the valley it was felt desirable that a new county be formed. The county seat was placed at American Ranch, now known as Quincy.38 For several sessioH of the legislature a movement had been on foot f4 (Redding) : 46.MERCED COUNTY, 1855. 13 hills of the Sierra Bgevadas on the east.40 The county seat was originally placed at Adamsville but soon afterwards moved to Empire City. The name was derived from Estanislao, the name of the famous Indian chief of this region. Three other boundary changes were made in 1854?. Once again an insignificant change was made in the ButteTSutter line.41 A change was also made in the line between. Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.42 By another act the territory of Marin was enlarged by extending the jurisdiction of the county out into the bay rather than along the low water line as established in 1850.43 There were other boundary proposals which were less suc- cessful. One proposed to detach a small area from But|| and Sutter and annex it to Colusi,44 another proposed to .form a county to be called “Merced” from portions of Tuolumne and Mariposa;4A while still a third would have formed a coun^ of “Pajara” from portions of Santa Cruz, Santa Clara and Mon^^fl counties.46 Merced County, 1855.^^ftitions and bills affecting more than a dozen different counties were introduced during the session of 1855 with the result that one new county was created and seven boundary lines modified to a greater or lesser de- gree. Merced was created from the western or valley portion of Mariposa County. As noticed above an effort had been made to form this county in 1854 from portions of Tuolumne and Mariposa, but sinHthe creation of Stanislaus had taken all the lowland portion of Tuolumne,4y|fihefnew.county was limited to a portion of Mariposa, it being given that part lying west of the main road running down the valley at the edge of the Sierra foothills.48 The name ol^e^county was derived from that of a river, named by Moraga and his „party early in the nineteenth century. Several boundary changes of some importance were made in 1855. The boundaries of Napa, which had been so im- *°Assembly Journal, 5th Sess. (1854), 278, 335, 482. Senate Journal, 254, 2p| 356, 4521 Statutes, 1854 (Redding) : 40, 191. 41Statutes, 1854 (Redding) : 26. *2Ibid., 148. “Ibid.MmWM **Assembly Journal, 5th Sess. (1854), 264. “Ibid., 49, lJSSPio, 123,206, 223. “Ibid.MjS6, 338, 34^JB3^«HmK 47Ante., p. 12. 48Statutes, liljra: 125. Senate Journal, 6th Sess. (1855), 210, 354, 363, 606, 671.S4N PMnCi$Co 5aM PIEGOBUENA VISTA"ÜOLraïTY, 1855. 15 perfectly described in the early acts were by a statute of 1856 fixed about as Shey' now stand. The northern boundary, en- tirely changed on the Ibid,, 150. S1lbid., 113. **Ibid., 200. 03Assembly Journal, 6th Sess. (1855), 665, 700, 808, 816. Senate Jour- nal, 769.16 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. in these words: “All that portion of the county of Tulare situated south of the township line dividing townships num- ber twenty-one and twenty-two south, shall constitute a new county to be called ‘Buena Vista’ County.”54 The proponents oBPajaro County” again urged their plan of forming a county from portions of Monterey, Santa Cruz and Santa Clara. The petitions for a new county were met by remonstrances against the project. It was argued that the indebtedness of Santa Clara and Monterey prohibited any feasibility of division.55 The division of San Francisco County was proposed in a bill for the creation of “Remondo County.” The bill passed the (assembly but was defeated in the senate.56 Another bill sought to create ‘ ‘ Suisun County ’ ’ by dividing Solano. It however did not obtain the support of the house in which it originated.57 San Mateo, Fresno and Tehama, 1856. County boundary legislation in 1856 resulted in the formation of three addi- tional counties: San Mateo, created from San Francisco; Fresno, from Mariposa and Merced; and Tehama, from Colusi, Butte and Shasta. Eeither of these counties was essentially a mining county but Hi represenfoHrather the growth of j-thyse parts of the stat<^^ffle adapted to agriculturamnta^^ In a previous paragraph notice Was taken of an unffitwga ful attempt in 1855 to divide San Francisco and form from the detached territory a new count^^^Hcalled “Remondo.” In l||6 this agitfflon was again renqWed and resulted in the ¡formation of San Mateo County, reducing to approx- imately its present area, San Fraa^^0| whose government then became consolidateHinto the city and cHnty of San Francisco.58 The ribr^^H boundary of tflH new county ran through Shag Rock in San Francisco Bay and tlffi soutBegfe end of Laguna de H Merced. The naH, meaning St. Mat- thew, was taken from a stream entering San J|jEjancisco Bay in this vicinity. The creation of Fresno County was the third and fesMmportant division of the once.large Maripgfh County. To t|li part detached from Mariposa was*add|||other terri- ^StatutesWlS55 : 203-5. I Assembly Journal, 6th Sess. (1855), 3$0j529, 622. Sacramento Union, ^^ffssemlhy^Journcrt? 6th Sess. (1855), 727, 791, 806, 826. Senate Jour- nal, 829, 834. «Assembly Journal, 6th Sess»1855), 187, 198, 562. 58Statutes, lS^K45,i^H9BDEL NORTE CREATED, 1857. 17 tory taken from Merced and Tulare.59 The name is the Span- ish term for ash tree so common along the banks of the streams in that region. Tehama County was created in response to a demand for a Bunty the bound- ary line between El Dorado and Sacramento Bounties: thence southerly, following the western boundaries of El Dorado, Amador and Calaveras counti® to the sec- tion line running east and west through the centers of townshi® 3 north; thence due west, along said section line, to the San Joaquinlffliver; then® down theBgglfer of the San JoaMm River to its junction with the waters of the Sacramento; theiffl up thj^HBHftif the Sac- ramentoHver to the placMif beginning.” Remonstrances presentedBy otheiJrPpposed to the forma- tion HE the countB resulted in a modification oftnaBidaries by t^^Hnmittee to which it was referred so as i^HRlude a large part of those opposed to the nevBrantyB In fls form the bill passed ^^^^^Bbly but ^^BflaWEp margin failed to pass the senate.95 San Joaquna was^^H by divisi^^ffi upon BTlisides, for in addition to those who sought to create “Mokelumne County, ”,others desired foE®detac^^Erom San Joa®^nand annexed to Stanislaus County. This seems to have been engii^HB^^Bthose interested in the of Knights Ferry, which it w® hoped might be a successful rival for „the rather migrat®- county seat of Stanislaus 90Statutes, 1859 : 225. 91Assembly Journal, 10th Sess. (1859), 225, 236.BE 5. 464. Sacramento Union, January 2^B2/2) ; February 1859. 92Ibid., March 14, 185$|fflHHHH^H a3Assembly Journal, 10th Sess. (1859), 432. Sacramento Union, April 4, 1859 (2/21. HHI 94Assembly Journal, 10th Sess.I®859), 464. Sacramento Union, March 21 *(2/3) ; 30 (3/3), 1859. 95Senate Journal, 10th Sess. (1859), 733, 738T^löWl 21 County. San uöaquin strongly il^tesrea"¿midst any divi- sion of her was joined in this by others who opposUnlffl annexation to^Stanislaus.96 At this session peti- tions^weik again presented from residents or Sierra, Yuba, Butte and Plumas counties asking that^^Screation of “Al- turas” or “Summit” County beitwI^^^Magain. A bill to ftl® effect passed assembly hut failed in the senate.97 Divisionists were also?Santa Barbara,98 Sonoma,99 and Fresno counties. In the latter county a petition, signed of tha^^fflnty, asked to be transferred to Tulare but on account of the protest of many others tMepeti- tion was denied.:^® During the eleventh session (1860) the legislaffen dealing! with county boundaries was productive of few changes. Four boundary ac^^ffipppassed. Three® these, relating to Mendo- cino® Marin 102 and B'^^W3 had i® their purpose the fix- ing of lines ® nearly as possible in accordance with previous legislatidh. The act relating to Stanislaus resulted from an agitati® carried forward from the previous session. This bill as introdu®. proposed to annex to Stanislaus portions to be det^tep from Tuolumne, Calaveras and San Joaquin countie® Amendments were made in blüh the assemlffl and senate with the result that the only part still under considera- tion was a triangular portion at the end pf San Joa- quin County»®04 This^^BitjEgy which included Knights Ferry was now transferred to Stanislaus.105 Two years later Knights Ferry became the seat of justi®of the county of its adoption. Other county division agitations were less successful. ‘ ‘ Alturas ’ ’ proponents again urged the division of Sierra County and once again succeeded in getting their measure passed in the assembly.106 Certain residents in northern El "AssemV^Journal, 10th Sess. (1859),^^B31,>.262, 339, 439?W61, 499 . Senate 97Assembly Journal, 10th Sess. (1859), 417, 432, 458, 464. Senate Jour- nal. fiB3. 696, 731. mSenaw&ournaK 114 fifo]^HM^®o accommodate this new condition. Mention has be® made in an earlier para- grap^^H^ proposed* counf||of Pautah lying east of the state boundary||| A similar mm^lwas agi^^Bgg 1860 in the :f®nr of a joint resolution asking Congress to cede t(|^^^®rnia 107Assembly Journal, 11th Sess. (1860), 537.IBB2 March 17 (2/5), '2 3 (1/4), 1860. 108Assem (1 8tKU*BM2 2amlt W9Ibid., 307, 309, 322. Sacramento Union, F’ebruary 10, 1860 (1/6). Journal, February 7 (2/2), 1860. 111AssemJmmRLijXmmwmstB&.RK. 563. 346. Senate JournalismHB564. 313Assembly Journal, 625. ™Ibid., 192. neAnte, 9.24 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. certain territory lying in the present state of Nevada. This then was® be organized as “Washoe County® According to the plan the boundaries were to run as follows :117H “Commencing at the pHit of forty- second degree of ®^^®itude with the one hundred and ei£^^^^^xe'gree of longitude w^BBi Greenwich, and running eighteenth until it easterly boun^^Bm^M^Hffl®thence ilortherly and along the 7 ,bounda® line ® thJ^Sta® of California to its northeast corner; tMgSHon the line ofdegree of ^ north beginning. ’ ’ The new^^ffi)ry was to be a^^^® to El Dorado CounH until organized. The argument in favo®)f this was tbBt the n^a mining ^^^^^Bhad so population district that®; already had 10,people&i^^^® of whom wereHalifomians, within a few montl®the population w<3$id be four or fi® times that nui^^H most^^Ríém Cali- fornians.118 was introduRl and passed the assembly altering the El Dorado-Amador boundary but the measure was löst in tl^^Rnate^^ Creation of Mono and Lake, 1861. The first of the min- ing countigf east of the £®*ra Nevadas was c^^Pd by a divi- sion of Calaveras County Hi 18During the session of 1860 a petition had been presented to the senate from citizens of Mariposa, Tulare, Fresno, and Calaveras counties for the preátion of a new county to be called “Mono.’® Early in the twelfth sessi® the project was again p"re®4ed, thisitime in the .form öf afebill providing for^^H formation of ‘fEsmeralda County®^ Ther$ was little or no opposition to the measure owing to the rapid growth of the region brought about by the development of the silver mines. The assembly committee re- ported the immediate ^^ffissity of passing the measure, but amended fhe .:bill by substituting the name “Mono” for “Esmeralda.” In this form it was accepted by the senate and became a statute.122 The name Mono was taken from that Union, March 6, 1860 ™Ibid., April 4, 1860 (1/5*). 119Assembly Journal, 11th Sess. (1860), 537, 696, et seq. Senate Journal, 746, 772.« ^K^Senate Journal, 317. v^Ibid., 12th Sess. (1861), 312. A similar hill was introduced in the Assembly; Journal, 243,^BO. * 122Assembly Journal, 319, 348, 606, 615. Senate Journal, 312, 343, 546. Statutes, 186|>i 235.LAKE COUNTY, l%iME| 25 of the important lake in the region. It is probably of Indian origin. i^H^^^ranty ^as also created in 1861, by detaching a por- tion of the northern end o5f*Napa County. During the pre- vious session of the legislature a petition had been submitted asking for thS formation of this new county. The proSejei was again presen^^H>$he^^^^^^K in 1861 with the resum that an act was passed creating The name was naturally suggested from Clear Lake, the most prominent physic&l feature of the county. Other tfflndary acts passed ufipfl dealt with Sacramento, BM^Mpnterev. Sonoma and the counties surrounding them. Ajshange in the channel oflhe Mokelumne River required a more its branches in order to maintain the thfl boundary ^^^pen^Sacr^ftnto and San J oaquind^V^^H boundary between Mo'^^^Hand San Luis Obispo had been'j^^fged many t^^Sbut was still unsatis- factory. In l^H was shifted northward and placed on a line three miles noi^^Rl J$pie sixth st^fidard south of Mount Diablo base-line.125 The act redefining the Butte-Yuba bound- ary came through, a disp'Otflve^^B location of th^B Wood- pile House. ’ ’ By the act this and outbuildings vfer|| placed in Yuba iGflixty.1^® Many otfh^^ffis dealing ydlflcbunty boundaries were intr^ duce®)ulHailed:of passage. One sought® secure the crea- tion of ‘ ‘fltura^^^^fflyJ ’ a project which had been pUj Rented and dei^^Bj. each session since 1858.127 San Joaqufl endeavpredv to re^pl or modify the act of 1860 granting to Stanislaus a portion flits territory.128 By means of peti- tions an agitation was begun^^^^^Kor the annexation toi San Mateo of ^^ffltory belonging fl Santa Crqz CountM29 and anothM^^Schhave annexed to Santa Clara a portion Union, March 26.1 ™ Statutes, 1862:6. 137Assembly Journal, 13th Sess. (1862), 144, 236-9, 248. Senate Journal, 445. ^^B&enate Journal, BSB. 391, ^^^Hl4, 485. 139Assembly Journal, 13th Sess. (ffi), ra, 282-4, 3ial^Kenate Journal, 39^R14, 418, 424. Sacramento Union, February 10, 17;WS«Mp ; March 3 (3/3), 7 (4/4), 9ffiffl), 25 (2/1), 1862.5SUJNDAB Y gjppiSLiPriiDN, liOT m for the creation of a new counw by t™ division of Sonoma.140 This^p^pn was probably a part of a fight begun the year g)&prPwRfm an was made to r^m®% the from^S^^MRosa H^^|aluma.141 B$aiS$*?)f un- Egrtamfyfl tl§?^^Hf 185|[^lefiningH6 boundaries of Napa County had arisen between Napa, and Solano regard- ing 1$pir common. b'n tne fixing of the By the state Snvveypp.had determined this threeubil^ farther^^Bh than had eama^K@tv^s? thus apparently add- ing terpH^T$b4^^Bpa County at the expense of Solano. A bill was boundary along thHlhie as earlier^^^^B® but the comi^^^^Bas divided its recom- mendaftoji and tbg^^^^Hs laid upon ^^Hable.142 Other bills \Hch did not obtain approval sought amend the boundary ^^B/een Monterey and San Luis Obisp^S! Tehama ^^Hha^L144Hid to^^B and d^me.the bourfda^pi of Lake14i5 Sutter.146 During the f§prt eenth 1863 Hfour boundary acts beeame^^ffitfces.' The first acts more clearly defined Ijtffdl altered ^^»oundai^^^^^^^Hierra and Plumas. The change gave t«!>ierra a narrow strip of^^Btory alorig its ^^nn boiHr.147 Two of the Hs related to the bound^^fl of El Dorado County, 0je of them Hing to Amador that f>o:F-i tion of El Dorado lying ^^^Bf and drained by Carson Rive^^BTMs territory was Hfluafter detached from EAmacfor as,« .H)inev County. The other H added H El Dora- do ’s territory at the expepS^BDlacer County^^BThis legisla- tion piplHt from an uncertainty ^Bn earlier acts regard- ing which branch o:^^B Fork of tffl American Rivla should as bt^^Bpcy^^^^mer with the desire,of residents Kf the La^ef^^^^^Be.^obied to El Dorado. The fourth aetl adu^^P^Be again th^^^^^^y-Ban Luis Obispo line which so manJ|tHes had undergone change. By His" act the bound- ary was placed upon the sixth standard south of Mount mm^PAssembWTJournal, 526. ^Tnion, April 1, 1861 (4/1' 143Assembly Journal, 381, 444, 445^481, 698. 143/bid."ifeS2*351, 393, 615. l4iSenate Journal, 414, 430, ^3? lisIbi6 a numbje^B settlers near Honey Lake organized an independ- ent territB&dalled by them Nataqua.154 The boundaries of this pn^^ffll territory included more populous regions farther south anil east, whose people had but.^BB. if any, knowledge or interest in ‘ ‘Nataqua Territory” so the projeHwas allowed to rest. ThR was, however, strong opposition on the part of a Hrtion of the Honey Lake settlers to any supervision by Plumas^^^^r, creupd by^^Blalifornia legislature in 1856, with the result^^^ when the Spervisors of that county took steps tq provide for the administrat^^Bf that part of the county they the creation in 1861 of Jievada^^Bit^ry which claimed as its western, boundary the summit of the ^^^^this territory was organized as a part of Roop Count^^^vada||2j This action brought on a clash with the officials which became known as the Sage Brush or Border Line War. After a resort to arms and some bloodshed an agreement was reached to appeal to the govern- ments of California and Nevada to have the boundary line determined by a joint survey.156 ^Statutes, 1863:358. wSpt-Assembly Journal, 14th Sess. (1863), 429, 475, 623. is2lbid., 479. 153Assembly Journal, 15th Sess. (1863-64), 230, 383, 394, 536. Statutes, 1863-4: 1B4Fairchild, Lassen County, 46-50.” wIbid., 78-82. At other times, however, they appealed to Governor Johnson of IfflBUifornia. for protection from Indians. Ibid., 86-7. istlbid.. 311-32 4.¡¡COSObGOUNTY, RBMi 29 This survey showed Honey Lake ^ lie well within the boundary of California and therefffl within Plumas Counts! The the ..Honey Lake peophflso£e however to be considei$ep. and since th^^^^^H was claimed a thousand people ^^B|^^@are was induBl. to pass an^J creating the: countyWf Lassen from that portion of Plumas lying e&|| of the summit of the mountains to was jiHol added the eastern half ^ Shasta.157^^ffle name was taken from that of pioneer who wa^^H of tl^jltla to open an emigrant route through the^^^M and whose grave is within its borders. Another affl passed and approved by the created a third new county to be known as “Coso County.” This county was to be formed (j^llf^lare and Mono County lay east of the Sierras and owed its rise to importanHlto B9e mining development in that region. defined the boundaries of Jggg ,{C(5untfy as follows :158 “Commencing at ^^Boint where the southern bound- ^^■¡rline c^B^HCounty ‘M intersected by the eastern boundary line of the StaffiMBCalifornia, and running in a westerly direction alongfflp^county boundary lino^o the summit of the Sierra Nevada Mountains ^fthepspe in a northerly direction along l|d summit, to the ^fed waters of Big Pine Creek; thence in an effflfflw direction down the . fa^dfe of the channel of said Jra Pin^^Bekj^to its mouth; thence east to|$fchid.3 in. imIbid., 301.30 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. Other measures sought to clear up difficulties in existing boundary An act was passed authorizing and requiring PmP^uperVis6rs; of San Joaquin and Oalayeras §ig survH and mark the linelbet^^H those two counties,161 while bills which failed to’* become statutes aimed to define the boundaries of Sacramento Cplfiity,® the boundary between Los Angeles and Santa'Barbara,163 and that between Monterey on the west and Merce*d and StaiiMaus on the east.164 Inyo and Kern Counties, 1866. During the session of 186^66 acts were passed which resulted in the organization of two counties each of which had been created by previous Under other names but neither had bBi organised! The first of these was As early as 1862 the project for the ifflnation of a county near Owens Lake east of the Sierras khacf been ^^ffight before the legislature, the name “Coso” beirig given to the propo^^Btu^^H Two years later the agi- tation had beei^^^^^Ol in so far as the legislature was eon-J |||*ped and “Cost^^RiSty” was cheated.165 For some reason, pie organization .^^^^^gB>mpleted so in 1866 tlflmatter was B^m) preserBl and an Htr passed creating® as Inyo B^B^MpiThis gfiw county included t®; part of Tulare lying] ^^nof the Sierras together with a portion of Mono County. The name is of Indian ^^^Mbu|^^^®^^^®|uncertain. In a simila^’inanner Kern County was This countfl had embracing prac? ®ally this same; -terbut designated in thqi|® as “Buena Vista County.” Although the terms of the earlier acHwP'e such that they could nHbe met and “ Buena Vista County” remained erB||eipi^^|and even official Hpprts refer that name.166 By the aclK a new ®®y was created outright, the name EglSg changed to that of Kern, a pioneer explorer who accom-l panied Fremont and for whom Kerri River was namh<|® The impetus for the creation of tl®countvlwas a confm^fflion of both mining and agricultural the predominance HIliiaillllM863-4: 262. Mie2Senate Journal, IBth Sess. (1863-4), 278, 308. 183Assembly Journal, !»n 584, 667, 689. 184Senate journal, 266, 308. '“Ante 28. lwStatutesi 1855 : 203-5; 1856: 96 ; 1858: 36.GRANITE AND NATq5otHs<ÉI 31 of the mining interests being seen in the fact of the location of the county seat at Havilah, a mining center.167 Several other acts were passed in 1866 altering and defining bounda^^B In the^^S oBfie^R two changes were mad^H first Sierra gained from Yuba Coufity a small territory lying between the north fork of the Yuba H&ver and Canon^^^^^B by ^ other act she $)St a more valuable i^^Hof terriM£y either northwest (fflner whiHwas given to Pluil^yH Thi£ja portion of the distncfiw^^M ^r a npuber of had been tryii^^H secede from Sierra and with parts of otf&ffleount^^^^^Hhave*forme(iJthe ®)- posed county of ‘ 1 Summit ” or ‘ ‘ Alturas. ’ ’ This act therbi^H gave to Plunms a portion of the Slate^^Hk Valley. Another tipo^^H board pf supervisors of Meiffld County ie^tahlare foun^^Hbe the authorization to ha^^^^^^Kd the boundaries between that counH and Stanisl$^$ in a mannS which added materially to Merced Counfr^^ffi line being made to run dinQcll^' across hhe valley much far^Rf norththe previous li^^BVCAeui were also passed more ^ehrly defining He boundaries of Mono,171 Placer,172 Yole/173 and Lassen.1'|M Granite or Natoma County Proposed, 1866. As in pre- mous 'sessibns several bills dealing with county boundaries failed of passage. Probably the most ambitious of these was a bill whiclr: would have created a new county to be called “GraniH’ from territory taken from Sacramento with portions from El Dorado and Placer.175 The boundaries of the proposed county were dffiribed in the bill as follows :176 BH^onflincing at the northeast comer of fractional sec- tion 4, In township 10 north, range 6 east, k^onte Diablo ¡Prfiase and meridian; thence running on and along the sera Htional^l^^Rirectly" south to Dry^CrCek (in DryfcjSreek township), Coimfy of SacramenH thencefon and along -6 ¿¿796^1 The name^Harytldh is d^iv^jfeb^^m^feiblieal reference to Havilah as the city iesIbid., 22 8. 169Ibid605. 170Statutes, t^oaBK : 172. Assembly Journal, 16th Sess. (1865-66), 373, 386, aaai 441. Senate Journal, 353MJ56. 171Statutes, 1865-66: 144. 172IbidMmiSm 173Ibid., 162. ™Ibid., 453. 175Assemffl|aJournal, 16thr^^^^M^^6), 535. ^■|^sSg5Kli?o Union, March 13^0866 (1/7).32 CALIFORNIA COUNTY^ BOUNDARIES. ■¿ItHe county line of Sacramento County in a southeast T^iiflfoiiOn to th^^^^Hy Kile of Amador and*Bl Dorado thence in a northwester^ direction to the Con- sumnes River at MichiganHarHhepc^^Hvith iPbe exception, ^kq%1|iC odd os e d to the bill. The substitute measure was for a time accepted but the bill was finally defeated.178 *A¿)ther bills were introduced dealing with the Fresno-Mariposa ^^Kdary,179 the Marin-Sonoma line,180 the bound^r^' betwHi ButHand Husa;181 as well as one to alter and Mb«* the boundary of San Mateo OounH182 Fi'V^e other county boundary acts were passed during the seventeenth ^»>n (186H of tími^^^HlCEíre. Two of them made noticeable changes in boundaries. One materially increased the area of San Mateo Hadding new territory at the expense of Santa Cruzf^ Another redefined the boundaries of Lake County so as to include within its borders Long Valley, the watersh'^^Hone of the branches of Cache Creek.184 Two other acts modified ^r repealed legislation passed at the pre- vious session. In the case of the Plumas-Sierra boundary the latter was again given a portion of the territory taken from it in 1866, the boundary being placed along Slag Creek.185 Another act repealed, in so far as it concerned Stanislaus, the Union, March 22^y866 (1/6). inIbid., March 24, 1866 (1 JM Assembly Journal, 16th Sess. (1865-6). 621, 644, 655, 662. inAssembly Journal, 654. W®™tbid.,. 566. Orrisl8enate Journal, 164, 430, 492. lstAssembly Journal, 327. 183Statutes, 1867-68: 174. w*Ibid., 269. wlbid., 462.PROPOSED COUNTIES, 1870. 33 act passed in 1866 affecting the boundaries of Merced.186 The fifth actrrqdefined the northern boundary of San Diego.187 Other proposed measures were not successful. One bill Introduced by Roberts of Nevada County sought the creation of a new^^Hty to be known as “Alta County.’’ This bill failed to secure the approval of the Committee on Counties and County Boundaries.188 Butm|9 and Alp^^D each unsuc- cessfully sou^t to amend recent legislation dealing with them boundaries. Likewise an attempt to change the Santa Bar- bara-San Luis Obispo failed of passage191 as did also legis- lation relating to Kern192 and Marin.193 No important boundary acts were passed by the legislature at its eigh^^mi session. One act enlarged Inyo at the expense of Mono giving to the ^^^a strip of territory some twenty Eqpeg wide running across the county.194 By another act the Mariposa-Fresno line was changedplpfei a direct course to a line along the sum™ of the fpyide between the Merced and San Joaquin rivers.195 Another act redefined the boundaries of Sacramento County without change except as was made necessary by the changing channels of the Sacramento River and its sloughs, tfmtteip Slough appears fH the first time in ^.escribing the western boundary of Sacramento County.196 New Counties Proposed, 1870. No less than six prospect- ive .counties presented claimsat its eight- eenth session showing why they should The list Anaheim, Dc^^S Orestimba, Summit, San Benito and Yentura. “Anaheim County” was to be created from the south and eastern portion of Los Angeles County. The measure passed the assembly but the senate felt that it was somewhat prematiAf^ and furthermore bec^^a of the drought of that year in Southern California the measure might well be laid cfflr until a later session.197 ™Ibid., 604. journal, 17«Kess. <^ffi7-8), 303, 424. iMJB&Mblv Journal, 17th Sess. (^H7-8^B451, 995 ; 241,-30^^ imIbid., 48C 687. iW™lS%?iQte'-Journal, .245, 6^7, 698. 247, 324. Assembly Journal, 366. 183Senate Journal, 194, 286, 627, 753. Statutes, 1869-70 : 20, 421. W®mind.&M9. 1MIbid.f|294. 187Assembly Journal, 18th Sess. (1869-70), 3^1 445, 481. Senate Journal, 585. pljiS^was thebeginning of the agithmm! resulting in the formationfipf Orange County.DONNER COUNTY. 35 “Donner County” was urged by the people of the trans- mountain district of Sierra, Nevada, and Placer. It was claimed tffig^^an area of three hundred and fifty square miles and ample population and resources for a separate According to the hill the^Hjiftdai^^H^p^ proposed county were to run as follows :198 at the^fcortfe^it '***rner County, on the state line; ^H^Bnorth along the state .north latitude; thence west along tha fortieth parallel to a poifll duiCnortli of the west bound- ary of Sierra and in Plumas Counter; thae^^^^H^toerly ra the N03Assembly Journal, 222, 386, 43^H Senate Journal, 633. 2WAssembly Mp^Urnal, 461, 587, 604.VENTURA CREATED, 1872. 37 of Los AmgeTes^County some sixteen miles farther west giv- ing "IfiSSlingeles a large of inStiptainous land f^t^j^ly belonging to Santa Barbara^Od^nfe^.^^ Ventura and Other Changes, 1872. The code was to p| considered as having' all ©il^c legislation of that session and’ therefgHwas to be superseded by any other acts passed during^^Msession. There were six such' special acts dHing with county boundaries passed ; the m*pt important of county from the eastern part of Santa Barbargj^nc^MH^Bto BMe name of “Ven- tura* ’ *from that of its chief town and the Mission San Buena- Rputura.206 By anOnaer^^Bthe boundar^H^ Lake H^ty were redefined and changed, Knox Hjpnship on the south being reann&j&^to Napa.207 At the previous session the Mari- posa-Fresno line had been modified giving to theHrmer county the Merced watershed. BjwSHof this session this was again changed to approximately its for^^^^Hsition with the ex- ceptiSijithat the Mariposa Big Tree grant was left with Mari- posaifeS® acts were passed seeking to make definite thfl fiction of the Siskiyou-Lassen He209 anc^'^Brovide for the Ritual survey of Mendocino and Humboldt, TrinB^and Klamath2Hand the boundary between Lake and Ipp.211 Measures were again ^^^^^^^^Halling. f or'^^BormaS|f|i of “Bonner2’212 and “San i?0nito’’213 counti^^H*tiiey failed of passaged'dH bills relating tcHie boundaries between Inyo and Mono',214 and Sacramento andHH^^^^^^^S2,15 A peti- tion IH^fcitizens of eastern Siskiyou asking for a new county to he^^ted from portions of Siskiyou, Lassen and Shasta to be called “Surprise$Qop$ty’’ was presented but no acticH takei®6 205For full discussion of this see Los Angeles County boundary. The Los BPSgjSsgicahoritiij&lhh^rctodk advantage of the annexation of this terri- tory. 206Statutes, 1871172 : 484. AssemWUJournal. 19th Sess. 294, RR>: 632. 207Statutes, 305. HSfi. 2i0Ibi(l., 766. ™IMd., 903. il2A:ssem,ply Journal,^, 19th Sess.’J&87^B), 315, 418, 65ff,^744. n3IMd., 154, 345. Senate Senate Vow'najml9.tM'Ses^Xl8S.1-7^B 404, 418, 47x.^j 21iAssembly 625. vD 8ijwB9 February 2, 1872"(3/3). 4—2490038 CALIFORNIA COUNTY EO&DARIES. Klamath Abolished; Modoc and San Benito Created, 1874. The twentieth session of ffle legislature abolished one county, Klamath, and created two new cofl^ffl^BModoc and San Benito, besides passing measures modifying the boundaries of several others. Klamath County bad been created in 1851 because of the interest in mining upon t® Klamath, Salmon, and Trinity rivers. Originally large ipi territory it had been reduced in size by annexations to Siskiyou, Trinity, and Del Norte until there was bu1®ittle left besides rugged mountains whose diminishing mineral we» formeWth^^^^Bsupport of its population. Miners were a shifting class of residents and mining property difficult to assess, the result therefore was that Klamath’s indebtedne^^^^Bvhile its assessed »valuation] declined. In view Rj this situation ^^Blegislfflireydp 1874 passed authorizing the dissolution of Klaifflli and of po^^K of it to Humboldt and ®ki;®i coun- ties respectively. The a®pr^^^®that the issue should be stib^n to the vote of the people of the counties concealed and that if a ®vorable result/ was obtained 1® dissolution Hjpuld befflHjleted.217 The creation of San Benito County, which had been agitated for some time Was finally authorized an act of this session, the territory for the new county being taken fjflim Monterey.218 In like manner^^^^B was created from the eastern portion of Siskiyou. The measure as at first drawn ^sought* to create a new county known as “Canby” from portions ofiSiskiyou and Lassen. Since it proposed toBiclude a considerable part of the population and wealth of the latter county the measure met strong opposition.219 Recognizing the inability to carry tine measure in that form a further bill was introduced calling for the division of Siskiyou (Hiñty, the detached portion to be organized as “Summit Counts« Since this bill elimi- nated the objecHftnal features of the previous measure®was approval® the committee and passed j^K^sB»ly. In the assembly the bill was also approved with an amendment substi- tuting the name “Modoc” for “Summit.® In this form M ^ Statutes, 1873-74 : 755. Senate Journal. 743. 218Statutes, 1873-74: 95. Assembly Journal, 20th Sess. (Biff 3-7 4 L 368, 418, 1 ff"lil'T'TjMrfflMK iirit!r Journal, 3(j7. 2wAssembly jlouriiQl, 361, 439. Sacrament3’£ííffiim3 JanuaryTWENTY-FIKST SESSION. 39 secured the approval and thus became a law.220 Several modifications in boundamsPvere made ¿nPfmJP^ession •, none, however, were of great significance. Fresno County’s boundaries both on the north and south were again defined, the former was merely a reenactmentbill passed in 1872 while the latter placed the Fresno-Tulare boundary along township and "Sfied^d^dfees rather than along the mountain ntf&ge as theretofore^^RThe n|opern linerijtf Sierra wa$ also placed upon township an^^Kion t|ftes ^without noticeable change in locati^^^^H the case of Alameda County a change was made necessary in order to prevent the long wharf recently erected Central Pacific Railroad Company from being intersected by the counlf? boundary. By a statute the western boundary of Alameda C^^B was made tg^run five hundred feet west of the wharf mentioned.223 Many other measures were considered but failed of passage. One of these which secured the support of both houses would have »formed a new Baa^ty named “Vallejo” by a division of Solano County. SinSe it failed to secure the Governor’s signa- ture it did not become a law.224 Bills to create a new county named “Orange” were introduce^both the senate and assembly*but on account of opposition were indefinitely post- poned by each house.225 A senate ^^Broposed the organiza- tion of a new county to be called “Manache” by subdividing Tulare County, but He measure was opposed by committee.226 Another bill introduced pending the outcIbid., 463, 1197.40 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. rae counties. This act referred to the line between Fresno and Tulare counties and was but a small change from the boundary adopted at the previous session. This new line returned to Fresno some^^B s$a^B townships and has remain« the boundary between the twb coun^^^^Bse that date.« Two amended acts relating to the and ^^^^witipn of Klamatfl Cour^^^^^B did not affect ^jfëaçr Other bills Baking to amend%fl^bounda^^Hf Alameda233 and toBtab- lish more ^^^Bthe Santa Clara-Santa^^^^^^^^^^Gd of ^passage. Twenty-Second Session, 1877-78. Oi 187$ two afl re- lating to coun^^fflundariq^^Re, passed. The first of these Bferred to the southern boundary of .SâprBento County and was necessifatB by thB changes in the channel of the Mokelumne Rrffl wBh ^^Hl850ffldtcut a new channel and he^fc^rcH | iBeet, a change in if the main channel were to be accepted as thBin^^^^^^^fln Joaquin and Sacramento co^ra^Bj By western branch of the river was raffled as the boundary^^^^Brother'iVB made a slight change in the San Alameda line by providing that the Bundary follow .the ship channel in the bay from the initial Bint to a position opposite Dumbarton Point.^^B Two new Binti es sought to be créated. Th^mrslBf these was “PurisimiB This county was toBe formed ffyom thpnorthern portion of Santa Barbara^a||| would con- tafflJ^Bt eleven-hundred sqBrb ifiilesBith a population of four tfljBB Lompoc was the ehiiB center of popula- tion-fl ather nronoiBcounfvdwas to be f oimedBBvid- ing Butte, the new county to becalled!^Chico.” Th^pght was fiBnB between the f^^m9fflKhe proposed county and the deiBders of the old (B, and many disputB statistics were pres|fi^R^bh each side. The fight seems to have been primarily the old feud between Chico and Oroville which was 230Statutes. 1875-76 : 397. 177. Bru^-B ^Assembly Journal, 21st Sess. (1875-76), 3ffl| 351. Senate Journal, 479. 234Assembly Journal, 378, 483. ^AssemV^ÊJournal, 22nd SH^||p87Î!y?B), 201, 4Eel Sacramento Union, January 14,ffllB(l/7).CONTINUED AGITATION. 41 increased by the growing difference in interests between the agricultural and miningj^^Bnts repres|g$®]3y each of these centers. The bill failed to pass ®e assembly.25® Likewise two measures dealing with the Los Angeles-San Bernar- dino line239 and the boundaries of San Luis Obispo240 failed of passage. Twenty-Third to Twenty-Fifth Sessions. The three Hs- sions of the legislature from 1880 to l^^Minelusive, passed no acts relating to county boundaries. In the twenty- third session several measures were considered; one dealing with the boundary of San Joaqui®41 one with the aphrltion of the western boundary of Lake County242 and another authoriz- ing survey of the boundary of Calaveras and Alpine counties,243 but nongjiffleived the support of the committees to whom they were referred. During the twenty-fourth session® 1881 ®f:our measures were under eÉhsideration. One ® these resulted from a revi- val of the Agitation for the creation ® ‘ ‘ Orange ’ ’ County,244 ImMmi’ from a lKMmn signed by residents in northern San Diego CountjpStWho asked th^^^^^® annexed to San Bernar- dino,#doubìÉ® the beginning of uñe moveme®táiH resulting KMBìè ^^^Bilìon of Riverside County.245 The two ^Med to the ®undaries of Sacramento and to a gjpEtktge in the Calaveras-San Joaqrffl boundary.247 During tl®twen1®fift^^^^^^K, number of.^^Ry bound- ary Measures were introduced, among tBn'a general® 11 providing for th®drma^^^® new counties.248 None, how- ever, were passed. ®s during previous sessions, i^^Miuntiga clamored for recognition. The formation of “ Orange County” was th®nb^^Bf many petitions and protests bug no action was taken.249 “Los Alamos Countyfí;,.presented 238Assembly Journal, 255, 310. Sacramento Union, January 25, 1878 |iHQ^nH[3/4) ; February «Ui February 14 (l®|d^8«£ 239Senate Journal, 423. ^Asseiribly Journal, 241Senate Journal, 23rd Sess. (1880), Q, 666. 2t2Assembly Journal, ^Ibid., 106. 227. 2i4Sen.ate Journal, 24th Sess. (1881), 265. Assembly Journal, Ut^K£6. 245Assembly Journal, 49, 176. 2i7Ibid., 273. Assembly Journal, 309. 248Assembly Journal, 25th Sess. 348jp50. Senate Journal, 85 379. '2iaMhmbly Sess. (M&MÍÍBíZ. l65M#al¥s3 154, 173.SAN FRANCISCO ft SA« OlEGrOBOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS, ||S87. 43 its claims for organization out of northern Santa Barbara, but becaufi of the general bill then pending the committee refused to give it-favorable consideration.250 Bills modifying the boundaries of Merced251 as as the El Dorado-Ama- dor252 and Siskiyou-Del Norte253 boundaries also failed of passage. Twenty-Sixth Session. But one change in county bound- aries was made by the legislature during its twenty-sixth session and that was of little significance. Since the act of 1850 the boundary between San Luis Obispo and the counties to the east had run along the summit of the coast range. In keeping with the general trend of legislation this was now modified and described by means of United States township and section lines.254 Other measures less successful related to changes in the boundaries of San Benito255 and Lake coun- Three“* ne$f counties sought recognition without ‘subi The§p were *‘Orange,”257 ‘‘Los Alamos” from a por- tion of Santa Barbara258 and one to be set off from San Bernardino County.259 Another attempt to pass a general act providing for the formation of new counties was also unsuc- Del Norte and San Benito, 1887. Two. acts of igQfcie im- portance relating to isCOUritjBiOundaries were passed by in 1887. One of^these transferred from Del Norte to Siskiyou all the. territory held by the former along the upper waters of the Klamath River.2^1 The othe|| act considerably increased the area of San Benito County by adding to it portions of Fresno and Merced counties.262 In addition to^these changes three new counties sought organization. These were “Glenn,” “San Leandro,|||and “Lorraine.” The bill for the creation of “Glenn County” 250Assembly Journal, 25th Sess. (1883), 209, 440. Senate Journal, 81. 251 Assembly Journal, 50. ' 2s2IbidSm06, 329, 650, 656. ™Ibid., 241, 277, 650. 2MStatutes, 1885 : 139. 2MSenate Journal, 26th Sess. (1885), 121, 306, 478. 2MAssemWm Journal, 152, 219. Senate Journal, 267, 342. w Assembly Journal, 26th Sess. (1885), 184, 255, 463. Senate Jour- nal, f f »sISPiISp? 268Assembly Journal, gf&l, 266, 388, 450. Senate Journal, 228, 548. Assembly Journal, 34 280/bid., 16, 91,133. Senate Journal, H9, 478. 281Statutes, 1887 : 106. 282Jbid., 103.44 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. from the northern portion of Colnsa was presented earls in Pill session and secured the approval of the assembly but did not pass the senile*26! The bill for the creation of “Lorraine” was introduced by Assemblyman Butler of Tulare who later withdrew it.264 Bills for the creation of “San Leandro County” from a portion of Alameda were produced, into both houses but failed to secure fsfflrable action in either.265 Orange County, 1889. After a fight lasting nearly twenty years the people residing in the southeastern part of Los Angeles County were given their own county government under the name of Orange County. This was the new county to be created during a period of^^^M^e^ts, notwith- standing urgent 9titions and other efforts to secure county organizations. ;As early as 1870 the movement for the organi- zation of a coHty under the name of ‘ ‘ AnaheiiB had begun, and had continued more or less persistently under the name <^^^9ta9ia” or “ Orange ’ Hntil its ^fcation under like latter name in 1889.266 By another act a ^pht verbal change was made in ;|he description of ^^Boundaries of Placer County but 9 not^9 able change of ^^^Hdaries.-'17 Three other districts sough^^H formation of new counties but with not great ^^^^^BBills to‘Glenn County” were intro^^^^ffl) botllh^^H and the assembly bill receive^ the app^o?smL<>f both bodies but was not approved by the Governor.26a Ot^^Hbills would have ‘created “Pomona imHfrom a portion of San Bernardino County. Many protests against county were filed with the result that n^pgisMtion resulted.269 “ Natoma County ” [was another organization.' This would ha'9embraced territory taken fron^^^^^BSacramcnto, western El Dorados and a portion of County and was■..ItqppilaSf’ obtuse of its rising fruit industry. 263Assembly Journal, 27th Sess. (1887), 79, 227,E^9^^S Senate Journal, gfl 276. 264Asse^D/i/ JournM, 2 04, .33 4. Senate Journal, 254, 290. Assembly Journal, 329, 603. 266Statutes, 1 K'kQ^KMM AWlSBm^mn'ii.rnn.l 28th Sess. 45, 111, 134, E8WSM264. 304, 356. Journal MW.). 304, 406, 540, 572, 623, 825. Itatute'mB^^^^^ ^Assembly . *210. SenateJj^rruui 157, 440> 833, 839, 840. 289Assembly Journal, 1 81, 331, 305, 458. £]$etyat(£fJournal, 197, 623. il0AnsMnbly JMy£2^,J,i$,HftiSacrainento UwiQTOyflFebruary•NEW C(IHNTIES,j 45 LTSill other b^ which failed of passage referred to changes in the boundaries of Butte,271 Del Norte and Siskiyou ;272 while ^e sought to*annex to Amador a portion of El Dorado.273 Glenn County Created, 1891. In 1891 theBforts to create Glenn County came'to fruition when the legislature passed an act dividingBdusa into tws|ss. (1889), 150,283. Senate Journat, 310,623. Journal, 71, 248. -"'•'•Ibid., 39, 151. Senate Journal, 36. ^Statutes, 1891: 98. Assembly Journal, 71, 307, 489. EWlat^^ieWmallif)518-9. ^J^mmoly^upurnal, 37, @07. Senate Journal, 4^K24. 274. ™As&jfflMjfiJouriuil, 123, 307. 490. Senate Journal, 143, wAssembly Journal, 246, 307. Senate Journal, 195, 274, 65^^| 278 Journal 3 ^Senate journal, 58. oufflt^M87. J32, $57. Senate Journatg^^S^2*866. ^Statutes, 1893:168. ■ i 282Ibid., 176. 2%*Ibid., 158.46 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. crea®m of “San Antonio County” from the eastern portion of Dos! Angeles Cofflty with Pomona as county and in tm^for the^creation H“San Jacinto B6 and “Escon- didoH'7 further bill sought merely to define more tcleaiH the northern boundary of San Diego and the southern boundary of San Bernardino In the lower San Joaquin Valley “Kings County” was crea^^But closely associated with this demand was that for three other counties, namely “Putnam,”289 from Tulare, with Pdrterville as the center; “Buena Vista”290 also Tulare with Tulare city as a prospective^^Bty seat; and also ‘ ‘ Teha- chapi CounB”291 The demand for a new county in the northern Santa Barbara region was again manifest in the agi- tation jf or “Santa Ynez”292 and “Santa Rita’BE counties. In northern California Butte alone experienced the epid^^B for county division. Krom there the' divisionists once againurgedBe formation raa new county iBbe named “Bidwell,”294 after the pkffl^^^^^Hof the district! Two other bills relating to boundaries were introduced but not approved. These cfflierned the boundaries of Del Norte296 and th^fflne between Sac^^^B) and Yolo.296 Four separate bills were introduced providing for a general law to deal with the question of new counties. Bfaone of these were approved by the committffl297 Constitutional Amendment, 1894. In from the demand which swept HKAegislature into creating so many 747. Semite Journal, m:. Sacramento Union, March (5/3). 286Assembly Journal, Journal, 90. 287Assembly Journal, 2sslbid., 586. 2ssIbid., 41, 337. Senate Journal, 62, 282. Sacramento Union, January- 12, 1893 (5/1). 290Assembly Journal, 41, 336. Senate Journal, 63, 282. Sacramento Union, jJHSaijy'! 12, 1893 *.<5/1). 291Assembly Journal, [I&xKE 2a2Ibid., 142, 21 (HB 229, 266AkB342, 391, 436, 797. Senate Journal, 166, 417, 518. Union, February 10, March 10, 1893 BU57)tO 298Assembly Journal, 213, 39H Senate Journal, 194, 313, 399, 417. 298Assembly Journal, 132MD4, 306, 356. Senate Journal, M&6, 299, 309, 33,a^^^HS|^^H Union, January 17, iHB (1/6). 296Assembly Journc^R&O. 2MIbid., lf)4rHH6. Senate Journal, 241, 472. 297Assembly*:Journal, 41, 179,',;<212. Senate Journal, 12(^235.HCONSTITUTIONAL MMDMENT, 1894. 47 new counties in 1^3 an amendment was proposed to the state constitution XI, .S6c^3) the text of which is as follows: PRfoesP 3. The legislature," by general and uniform laws, may^j^^^^^HjSthe formationnew counties; provided, hoivevei^mhat no new county shall be established1 which shall QluCe any county to a population of iessvfcfflifeight V|Ba?ncirnor shall a new county be t^^^aftontaining a less population of less than fiBthousand; nor shall any line thereof pass within five miles of the county seat of any?£^^^HiroH^ffl to bBlivided. Every county which aTshall be enlarged or created from territory taken from any^<^^^^mnty* or cou^^Sj shall be liaS^Hor a just proportion of the existing debt and liabilities; of the bounty countiBfromR^^^Hsjiefj territory shall be taken. ’ ’ Ey?fais was submitted to referendum and adopted by the people November 6, 1894. Thus was the legislature deprived of tlBright of creating new counties by special acts as had each case before that date. Although '%^BconSfMtional am^^Hbitt of 1894 did not restrictive power of the legislature in altering county^bound- aries, practically no boundary legislation was passed duijing! either the thirty-first, thirty-second or thirty-third sessions of the ^^H^Rre. The thiriy^n^^^^^| (1895) spent n^pfl time working over a bill of a general character which! would satisfy the reauiremenl^^Kii&B^^Rition. but 'j^^^Hlid not pass either hoUse.298 Other pro^^^^^^^^^^Ht toichange the bou^E^H of' Alpine299 and Contra CostaB and the PolitiH Code by adding ^^^^^Hefining the boundaries of Orange CouBn301 The thirty-second session took up again Be matteogof a general|act but bB houses. disappi^^fl of the features of the bills as proposed.3B Changes in (flnly boundaries were sought fin the cases of Madera303 and VeiBraSilSthe latter case the Conejo Rancho was to be thrown entirely into Ven- 22SAssembly Journal, 64, 180, 185, 199, 208, 300, 321, 322, 363.■senate Journal, 395,873, 1074. 2mAssembly Journal, Sess. (189HH l48,'j 363. Senate Journal, 503, 1074. 800AssemVHM-Journal, 472^092p 610. M'lbid., 319, 61 {^K^^nwjoumal, 411, 523, 1074. 802Assembly Journal, ‘32d £e4^077Journal, 331, lifMj 803Assembly Journal, 2.CALIFORNIA-1895MORE^^A£iy^SCmETroNS, 1901. 49 tura CountyJ04 Another bill would hafl changed «the] Et jorado-Amador lm&^A The ^^Hlegislatipn adopted, how- EvSr, was a redefinfBi of ^^Hutte-Yuba Bundary.306 During the thirty-third session there was much: Inefi^cti^ej debaB in referenc^^H boundary matters. Plumas caused mffi of this on of her flock of a half dozens bills rede- fining her boundariB On account ¿mou^^^^EOchar- acter of the region prgf^cpjy all of the boundaries of Plumas ^^Hity had been placed along rMes^r in ^^^Bf natural It was now prabjosed to defB the bound- aries by means of the and,Btnafl end a sepa&B bill ^^wntroducB to dsSMBfw.fhe boundary ^^ffl^jPlumas and of the adj aThe mort^^Mboundary of Mendocino alsofec^^^^^Bits share oF attention. By an actB: 1872, a survey of this which ran afepM the 40th parallel north, was^^^^^^^K^ s#tuteait being stipulated that ffffi line as surveyed should be the legal boundary. In accord&nB with ^gjis act th^^Hundary was but Wa^^^^Rouljd not to haiBxdlowed the 40th parallel but to have^^^^^^^^B fuyth^f’ south. An al^ratfon of this line to the 40th parallel was now proposed, but Be measure was fl; adopted.sB Other ^ws rel^^Ro the northern line of San Mateo,309 th^^B between Shasta and Lassen,3^ the one between Amadofr anBifi Dorado,Band iB Solano-Yolo bound- ary.312 A general bill dealing with the boundary matters passed the assembly but nc$te passed the senate.^^B More Exact Descriptions, 1901. The thirty-fourth session fji the - legislature passed five acts defining county boundaries. In none of cases was a change in boundary proposed, but merely a better d^^mion of boundariea^Berrps, of|tS regular United States surveys. Three of t^^Hacts related to Plumas County and defined the boundaries between that 304Assembly Journal, 32d Sess. (1897), 734, 926. - 30B/&id.MaM&l. 1215. Senate Journal, l7feMl119. lijpMgiatUtes, »1897 : 22. Senate Journal,]302, 431, 479. 307Assembly Journal, (1^991. 410^*2. Butt^,' Yuba, Tehama, Lassen, and^Hiasta were the other |Hmties affected, ^Ibid., 78, 323, 379, 585. Senate Journal, RHg4. 309Assembly Journal, 473, 772, 1119. Sena^MJournal, 1085. *™A^Bmbly Journal, 237, 323, 396. Senate Journal, 889. 311AssAnbly Journal, 896, 1023, 16il. tonbidJB^EBmBBMournal, 457, 458, 671. Journal, 45D, 772, -,142-66; Kem, 1866-date. 2. Mariposa, 1850-5l|HH Angeles, 1851-^jl Kern, 1866-date. San His Obispo, ; Kern, 1885-date. Kings. 1. Mariposa, 1850-52; Tulare, Kings, 1893-date. S^t'MariH^B 1850-5^ Tulare, !^^pT4; Fresno, 1874-76; Tulare, 1876-93; Kings, 18^^Bfe^ ^ 3. Mariposa, n§850-56; Tulare, 1856-74; Fresno, 1874-76; Tulare, ¡^76-93; Kings, 1893-date. 4. Mariposa, 1850-56; Tulare, 1856-H; Kings, 1893-date. 5. Mariposa, 1850-56; Fresno, 85^-1909; Kings, 1909-date. 6. Mariposa, 1850-52; Tulare 1852-56; Fresno, 1856-1909; Kings, 1909-date*;; Lake.1 1. Napa, 1850-61; Lake, 1861-date. 2. Mendocino, 1850-52; Napa, 1852-61; Lake, 1861-date. 3. Mendocino, 1850-55; Napa, 185&-61; Lake, 1861-date. 4. Mendocino, 1850-64; Lake, 1864-date. 5. Yolo, 1850-51; Colusa, 1851-68; Lake, 1868-date. 1The northern boundary of Napa and the eastern boundary of Mendo- cino for 1850 and 1851 must not be accepted too literally. The Napa line was entirely inconsistent wi^fl other boundaries; and Mendocino was unorganized.64 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. Lassen. 1. Shasta, 1850-64; Lassen, 1864-date. 2. Butte, 1850-54; Plumas, 1854-64; Lassen, 1864-date. ■ Butte, 1850-54; Plumas, 1854-72; Lassen, 1872-dat^H Los Angeles. 1. Los Angeles, 2. Mariposa, 1850-51; Los Angeles, 1851-date. 3. Santa Barbara, 185®1; Los Angeles, 1854-ciat^H Madera. 1. Mariposa, ; Fresno, 1856-93; Madera, 1893-dato^i 2. Mariposa,Merced, 18g^l; Fresno, 1856-93; Madera, 1893-date. 3. Mariposa,Fresno, 18fo$-70; fflariposa, 1870-72; Fresno, 1872-93; Madera, 1893-dalT^B Marin. Marin, 1850-date. Mariposa. 1. Mariposa, 1850-date. 2. MaripoSt^ li^^^Bfc'resno, ^^B-70; Mariposa, 1870-date. Mendocino.2 1. Men^^fflo, 1850-date. 2. Sonoma, Mendocino, l&Hdate. Ipjfe Sonoma, Mendocino, 1859-dat5, 4. Mendooino, 1850-55; Sonoma, 1855-50; Mendocino, 1859- date. Merced. Mariposa, ^^^^^Aierced, 1855-data ' Modoc. Shasta, 1850-52; Siskiyou, 1852-74; Modoc, 1874-date. Mono. 1 Calaveras, 1850-61^^^® 1861-date,-,;. 2. Calaveras, 1850-54; Amador, 1854-64; unattached, 1864- Mono, l^n-d^ta^ 3. Calaveras, 1850-56; Fresno, 1856®.; Mono, liral-date. 2Mendocino was unc^^^R||d'^^^^^Kl$59, being joined to Sonoma County.KEY TO MAP. 65 4. Mariposa, 18^0-p6 ; unattach$dH856-6r-. Mono, 1861-date. Mariposa*^^^^®? j' Frl^o, 1KjioH ; Mono, 1861-date. 6. Mariposa, l|p>j^^H Tnlare, 185^B Fresno, 1856-61; Mòno, 1861-datBB Monterey. 1. Monterey, 1850-date. 2. San Luis Obispo, 1850-51 ; Monterey, 1851-date. 3. San Luis Obispo,; Monterey, 1851-61 ; San Luis Obispo, 1861-72 ; |^H|^MM372-date. 4. Monterey, 1850-6mSan Luis 1861-72; Monterey, 1872-^^^B 5. San Luis 1850-63 ; Mont^R&jl863-date. Napa.3 ^HNapa, 1850-date. 2. Napa, 1850-64; LakHl864-72Biapa, 1872-date. 3. Napa, 1850-61 ; Lake, 1861-72 Bapa, 1872-dat^:^ 4. Napa, 1850-68 ; Lake, 1868-72 ; Napa, 1872-date. 5. Solano,^^^^gHNapa, 1855-date. 6. Sonoma, 1855-date. Nevada. 1. Yuba, 1850-51 Kpia, Bl-date. 2. Yuba, 18^5^Blevada, 3. Yuba, 1850-52; Sierra, l^KJ Nevada, 1856-date. Orange. ^Los Angeles^^^^^^Borange, 1889-date^ - Placer. 1. Sutter, 1850-51; Placer, 1851-date, it. Yuba, 1850-51; Placer, 1851-date. 3. ^|l Dorado, 1850-1913 ; Placer, 1913-date. Plumas. 1. Butte, 1850-54 ; Plumas, 1854-date. K Yuba, ft 0-52; Sierra, 1852-66; Plumas, 1866-date. sThe northern boundary oJSapa for 1850 and 1851 is pat considered since it is so inconsistent i^tth^the adjoining Effinty boundaries.66 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. Riverside. 1. San Diego, 1850-93; Riverside, 1893-date. 2. San Diego, 1850-51; Los Angeles, ¿51-53; San Ber- nardinoH853-93 ; Riverside, 1893-date. 3. Los Angeles, San Bernardino, 1853-93 ; River- side, 1893-date. 4. Los Angeles, 1850-51; San Diego, 1851-93; Riverside, 1893-date. Sacramento. Sacramento, 1850-date. San 3^yurol.tf 1. Monfei|cra lgf|ffi74; San Benito, 1874-date. 2. Mariposa, 1850-55 ; Merced, 1855-56 ; Fresno, 1856-87 ; San tìfjiito, 1887-date. 3. Mariposa, l^p^ ; Merced, 1855-87 ; San Benito, 1887- date. San Bernardino. 1. San Diego, 1850-51; Los Angeles, 1851-53; San Ber- nardino, 1853-date. 2. Mariposa, 1850-51; Los Angeles, 1851-53; San Ber- nardino, 1853-date. ^^^Los Angeles, 1850-53; San Bernardino, 1853-date. 4. Mariposa, 1850-51; Los Angeles, 1851-78; claimed by San Bernardino since 1876. 5. Los Angeles, 1850-78; claimed by San Bernardino since 1876. San Diego. San Diego, 1850-date. San Francisco. San Francisco, 1850-date. San Joaquin. 1. San Joaquin, 1850-date. 2. Sacramento, 1850-78; San Joaquin, 1878-date. San Luis Obispo. 1. San Luis Obispo, 1850-date. 2. San Luis Obispo, 1850-54; Santa Barbara, 1854-72; San Luis Obispo, 1872-date.JtESyTO MAP. 67 3. San Luis Obispo, 1850-51; Monterey, Pf§|ï-61 ; San Luis Obispo, 1861-date. 4. Monterey, 1850-61; San ijtais Obispo, 1861-date. 5. Santa Barbara, 18^raMt San Luis Obispc™854-date. 6. Mariposa, 1850-52 ; Tulare, ; Kern, 1866-85 ; San Luis Ob^^B 1885-date. San Mateo. 1. San Fran(^^M^^^ffl ; San Mat@ 1856-date. ^■■Santa Cruz, 1850-68; San Mateo, 1868-date. Santa Barbara. 1. Santa Barbara, 1850-date. 2. Santa Barbara,^^^-51 ; San Luis Obispo, 1851-52 ; Santa Barbara, 185^^^æ. 3. Santa Barbara, 1850-54 ; San Luis Obispo, 1854-72 ; Santa Barbara, 4. San Luis Obispo, HmB-72; Santa Barbara, 1872-date. Santa Clara. Santa Clara, 1850-date. Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz, 1850-date. Shasta. 1. Shasta, 1850-date. 2. Butte, 1850-54; Plumas, 1854-72; Shasta, 1872-date. Sierra. 1. Yuba, 1850-52 ; Sierra, 1852-date. 2. Yuba, 1850-66; Sierra, 1866-date. 3. Yuba, 1850-52; Sierra, 1852-66; Plumas, 1866-68; Sierra, 1868-date. 4. Butte, 1850-54; Plumas, 1854-63; Sierra, 1863-date. Siskiyou. 1. Trinity, 1850-51; Klamath, 1851^.; Siskiyou, 1852-date. 2. Shasta, 1850-52; Siskiyou, 1852-date. 3. Trinity, 1850-51; Klamath, 1851-75; Siskiyou, 1875-date. 4. Trinity, 1850-51; Klamath, 1851-57; Del Norte, 1857-87 ; Siskiyou, 1887-date.68 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. Solano. 1. Solano, 1850-date. 2. Mare Island: Sonoma, 1850-53; Solano, 1853-date. Sonoma. 1. Sonoma, 1850-dat^H g: 2. Mendocino, 1850^0^ Sonoma, 1855-date. 3. Mendocinc^ML850-59; Sonoma, ®59-date. StanislaibI5 1. Tuolumne, 1850-54; Stanislaus, 1854-date. 2. Tuolumne, 1850-54; Stanislaus, 1854-66; Merced, 1866-68; Stanislaus, 1868-date. 3. San Joaquin, 1850-60; Stanislaus, 1860-date. Sutter. ■ Sutter, 1850-date. £ r 2. Sutter, 1850-51; Placer, 1851-66; Siltjfl, 1866-date. 3. Sutter, 1850-51; Butte, 18K1-56; Sutter, 1856-date. 4. Sutter, 1850-51; Butte, 1851-52; Sutter, 1852-date. 5. Sutter, 1850-52; Butte, 1852-54; Sutter, 1854-date. Tehama. 1. Colusa, 1850-56; TehamaBl56-date. 2. Colusa, 185(^p.; Shasta, 1851-Ii|Hbehama, 1856-date. 3. Colusa, 1850^.; Shasta, 1851-57; Tehama, 1857-date. 4. Shasta, 1850-5'iMTehama, 1857-date. 5. Shasta, 1850-56; Tehama, 1^5i6-c^^^| 6. Butte, 1850-56; Tehama, 1856-date. 7. Butte, 1850-51; Shasta, 1851-56; Tehama, 1856-date. Trinity. 1. Trinity, 1850-date. 2. Trinity, 1850-51; Klamath, 1851-55; Trinity, 1855-date. 3. Trinity, 1850-59; Mendocino, 1859-60; Trinity, 1860-date. 4. Mendocino, 1850-^; Trinity, 1872-date. Tulare. 1. Mariposa, 1850-52; Tulare, 1852-date. 2. Mariposa, 1850-52; Tulare, 1852-56; Fresno, 1856-74; Tulare, 1874-date.KEY TO MAP. 69 Tuolumne. Tuolumne, 1850-date. Ventura. 1. Santa Barbara, 1850-72; Ventura, 1872-date. 2. San Luis Obispo, 1850-72; Ventura, 1872-date. 3. Los Angeles, 1850-5® Santa Barbara, 1851-72 ; Ventura, 1872-date. 4. Santa Barbara, 180-72 ; Los Angeles, 1872-1881 ; claimed by V&ftWa since 1881. 5. Los Angeles, 1850-5§f Santa Barbara, 1851-72; Los An- geles, 1872-81; claimed by Ventura since 1881. Yolo. 1. Yolo, 1850-date. 2. Solano, 1850-57 ; Yolo, 1857-date. Yuba. Yuba, 1850-date. 6—24900APPENDIX II History of the Boundaries of Los Angeles County, with MapB B fl /\ B B B ■ B \ \ \ \ \ fl \ \ \ fl \ B a\ \ \ \ ■ \ a * Los Angeles County. Solid blue Stats. . 185ft: 59. a Stats. 1851:172. To Stats. 1853:119; 1856:53; 1857:165. c Stats. 1865-6:796. cl Pol. Code (1872), §3945. e East line, survey of 1876; west line, 1881. f Stats. 1889:123. Red Boundary as observed, 1922. For key to maps see page ix. \ \ > s \ B ) / / 21936an V \ \ \ \ ■ÎCiî;LOS ANGELES COUNTY Original Boundary, 1850. Los Angeles was one of the original counties into which, the state was divided in 1850. Although adjoining Santa Barbara, Mariposa and San Diego counties, its area was then sjhatl as compared with the terri- tory which was included within its borders during the suc- ceeding years. Its boundaries then were as follows: ‘ ‘ Beginning on the coast of the Pacific at the southern boundary the farm called Trumfo, and running thence along the summit of m^Bdge of hills called Santa Susana to the north welter^ boundary of |he farm called San Pçanoisbd ; thence along the northern and northeastern boundary of said farm of San Francisco to the farm called Piro;j;,^fi^^Hj^^H running due northeast to the summit ofB^MCoast Range; thence along the summit of said range to the western boundary of San Diego ■County,”1 which the ocean, thence northwest to the start- ing point, including Santa Catalina and San Clemente islands. When an atteint is made to plot ■s line in accordance with modern geographBl knowledi^^^My difficulties arise. The first of thesBs met in the endeavor to identify the “farm called Trumfo, ’ ’ which nowhere appears upon the maps under this title. There is, however, a rancho, Las Yirgenes, through which runs the Triunfo Creek which has since an early date been accepted as identical witS^H rancho referred to.2 This rancho, as now surveyed, does not reach the ocean Kb is there- fore necessary to run an Arbitrary line from the southern cor- ner of this rancho tHhe océan in orde^ to ascertain the point of beginning. In the^^^^^^^^Bfrom the Triunfo Ranch the line was defined as running along the “summit of the ridge of hills called Santa Susana.” Here again trouble is encountered, unless one is willing to interpret the law not too strictly in accordance with modern names. A study of early 1 Statutes, 1850 : 59. 2A11 later acts define the boundary in terms of Triunfo Rancho, and in all the maps the line is run by Los Virgenes. There is a Triunfo Creelqj and canyon within the limit of this rancho, which probably gave it this name. This name is variously spelled Trumfo, Triumpo, Triumfo, and Triunfo. First surveyed in 1865; approved survey in 1881.74 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. maps indicates^ that the name Santa Snsana was applied rather generally, including the hills on t^^HuthjgS^^jbf the Simi Yal- |$y, as well as those on north of this valley. Under these conditions, then, the present Simi and Susana hills and Oak Ridge might all have been included under the one name. The line then north from the Las Yirgenes Rancho to the Simi Hills, thericefico tlteJ eastward around raft end of the Simi Yalley and westward alon^^H SaijraKjffianOTHills and Oak Ridge to th^^an Franci® Ranch^^^MRlong this rancho to Temescal Rancho,* * 3 thence non^^^o, tc^^^ummit of the Coast Range, and eastward along the summit to the San Diego boundary, line.4 The Line of 1851. In 1851 the former act was replaced by a new one whereby the county boundaries were redefined in full. By this act a radical change was made in the terri- tory of Los Angeles County, through the annexation to Los Angeles of the territory including the present San Bernardino County. The western and northern boundary of Los Angeles as then defined began “on m^past of the Pacific, at a point parallel with the northern boundary of the Rancho, called Malaga; thence in a direction so as ^include said Rancho, to the north- corner of the Rancho, known as Triumpo, running on the northerly line of the same to the north-east corner; thfM&*to the summit of the ridge of nms called Santa Susanna; thence ml a direct line Rancho of Cas- teque and Lejon and along their northern line to the north-eastern corner, and from thence in a north-east line to the eastern boundary of the State. ’ ’5 Since this line stood for many years and a portion of it is still retained as the boundary of the county, its proper loca- tion is of greater historical importance than the line of 1850. From the coast to^^H northeast comer of the Triunfo Rancho, the line of 1851 has come down, without legislative change, to the present day. In absence of contradictory evi- ®Temescal is taken for the Pirn rancho of the act. The Piru Creek runs through this rancho. The reference to the northeast boundary of San Francisco rancho was evidently due either to oversight or to igno- rance*Qf 4he geography of the region. 4The San Diego line in 1850 ran from the ocean up San Mateo Creek to its source, and thence due north to the state line. * »Statutes, 1851: 172.LOS ANGELES COUNTY. 75 dence, then, the presumption is that the line, as it runs at pres- ent, is the same as the line of 1851. If this he the case, two points are cleared up: first, the Malaga Rancho referred to is identical with the present Malibu Rancho# and, second, the Triumpo Rancho is the same as the Las Virgenes Rancho. The line of 1851 conforms therefore in general to the present boundary as far as this northeastern Las Virgenes Rancho. From the Las Virgenes (Triumpo) Rancho to the Rancho of Casteque (Castac Rancho) the location of the line is more or less uncertain because of lack of definiteness as to the loca- tion of the intermediate point, lying on the “summit” of the Santa Susana ^^^HThat the term, Santa Susana Hills, at that time included more than the ridge to which the name is now applied was shown in discussing the line of 1850. By the same process of reasoning, the point in question must lie at some place on a line following the summit, of the Simi Hills to Santa Susana Hills, and thence to Oak Ridge. Since all subsequent acts in reference to this boundary have defined it in terms of this same point or a point similarly described a study of the present lme may assist in determining the loca- tion of the point. From a casual examination, the conclusion is naturally drawn that the present irregular line is not in harmony with the act of 1851, but if this line is followed to its first inter- section with the summit line above described, this is found to be at a point at or near the Santa Susana Pass on the road leading from San Fernando Valley westward through Simi Valley. Further evidence lends support to the conclusion that this is the point also intended by the act of 1856, and in the code of 1872. Since this is not the nearest nor highest point on t^^^^nitm the ridge, nor the most direct in line between the Las Virgenes and the Castac ranchos, it may be questioned whether this is the point defined in the act. In other words, is it reasonable to suppose that the point was located so far east of the other points referred to in the act? An examina- tion of the topography shows that, with the exception of the Simi Valley,pfhe greater part of this territory is mountainous 6Rancho Topanga Malibu Sequit, commonly called Malibu Rancho.76 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. land, and therefore would be considered of little* value in determining to which county it should belong. Under the interpretation of the law of 1850, Simi Valley was shown to be in Santa Barbara County. It would be in keeping with that act that the new line should leave it there. That is the result if the point at or near the San^ Susana Pass is accepted. On the other hand, to run the line directly north- ward would result in dividing the Simi Valley and rancho between the two counties. On this point it is to be observed that the legislators were inclined to follow boundary lines of ranchos rather than cut across them. The conclusion there- fore is that the pointed on the summit of the ridge of hills called Santa Susana’’ was located in the near vicinity of Santa Susana Pass.* 7 A study of maps in the archives of Los Angeles County shows that in early years the line from Malibu Rancho to the northwest corner of Las Virgenes was merely extended in a straight l|q£ northeasterly untile intersected the summit at the point first descriHl.8 In 1881, however, the line was! surveyed as shown on the present maps. Although it would [appear that from Virgenes (Triunffl) Rancho to ¿fie point near Pass is very irregular and not in harmony with the code line, a closer examination indicates that the later surveyors, instead of going in a direct line across the mountains, chose to follow the eastern boundary of the Simi Rancho, which had already been surveyed, to the point desired.9 After leaving the point upon the summit of the Santa Susana Hills, the line ran to the Castac Rancho,10 thence along the western and northern sides of this rancho and the Tejon Rancho, so as to include them within Los Angeles County,3 thence in a direct line northeasterly to the eastern boundary of the state and southward to the San line. This k 7SinceBfflis was the fflnt where the road between and Simi valleys crossedBBe hills it was naturaiUMBWlMffWr“summit.” 8This completely ignored clause in the act which WffiSSJIS; the line as “running on the northerly line of the same the northeast »The fulHiiotes and plat surveys of 1881 are in the office of thel County Surveyor, Los Angeles. ““Rancho of Casteque and BSlffl" The act of 1856 specifies the north- west corner of this UA more complete discussion regarding this portion of the act will appear in connection with the consideration of the act of 1856.©ÖS ANGELES COUNTY. m San Diego line, as defined in a previous section of the act, ran easterly from the coast at San Mateo Point along the north and western sides of Santa Margarita Rancho to the western corner of Rancho San Jacinto Nuevo; along its north- ern side to the northeast corner, and thence, in a line parallel with the southern boundary of theto the Colorado RivefijP San Bernardino Line, 1853. After the act of 1851 the next change in the boundary of Los Angeles County was made in 1853, when the eastern portion of the county was separately organized as San Bernardino County. Prom the date of its organization the line between that county and Los Angeles has remained essentially the same; although, as will presently be noted, the line as surveyed in 1878 does not conform strictly to the legislative acts upon which it is based. The soi^em part line of now fQj'ms the bound- ary between San Bernardino and Orange ^unties, the lattS [county having been set off from Los Angeles in 1889. In reference to this boundary some difficulty was encountered before 1872 on account of the manner in which the southern part of the line was described. It read: “Beginning at a point where a due south line drawn from the highest peak of the Sierra de Santiago inter- sects the northern boundary of San Diego County; thence running along the summit of said Sierra to the Santa Ana river.”13 It will be noticed that the act fails to state how the line was to reach the “highest peak of the Sierra de Santiago” from the point designated as the place of beginning, feis natural to suppose that this line ran due north to the peak described, but, on the other hand, if reliance can be* placed upon early maps, which also seem to be confirmed by the code in 1872, this north and south line was entirely disregarded and the boundary made to follow the ridge northwesterly from 12For more complete account of this line see under San Diego County. 13Statutes, 1853 : 119.78 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. its point of intersection with the San Diego boundary, a point some distance northeast of the place described in From the Santiago ridge northward,boundary is the same as the presen^^ffl. No difficulty is encountered until the Cucamonga Rancho® reached. Here confusion arises because of uncertainty regarding the topographical features mentioned in tH act. Since this li® as established in the act of 1853 serves as^ne basis for the present boundary between San Bernardino and EM Angeles count®, and similarly for the line between Kern and San Bernardino, an effort has been made to examine carefully the historical evidence in reference to it. The poi^^Sof the act in question reads: “themle along SB®ap;ern boundaries of said (San Jose) Ranch and of San Antonio, and the north- ern boundary of Cucaimonga ranch to the ravine of Cucaimonga. ’ns The confusion arises either beeauseftne surveyors who origi- nally located the line failed to run it in accordance with the * act, and later efforts ha^^^^H madfflo int^^H^ |he act in agreement with the lihl surveyed; or because of subsequent changes in nomenclature, wh®by Cucamonga has been transferred to a ravi$p other than the one iihfefldbd in the statu® The question is, whether th^B ravine of Cucai- monga ^^Bitioned in ^S^ct is iBe^^fflN&ith the San Antonio ravine on the ^eStern boundary of Cu^taftnga Raifflo, or is it the smaller ravine or cañón lying some two miles further east to which the name is,*t| present applied? The surveyors of lLos Angeles and San Bernardino cofflties have accepted the San Antonio ravine a^^ra original ‘ | ravine of Cucaimonga. ” and as authority state that this was original name for the ravine as shown upon eamy maps.16 Other evidence, how- ever, does not support this contentionEir, since 1865 at latest, the United States surveyors have uniformly applied the name San Antonio and CucanfO'nga to the ravines now bB*ing thcH 14The maps examined arei Kiepert-Eddy, Karte de& States California, lteerli^H856; Britton and Rey, Map of the State of California, by Geo. E. Goddard. C. E„ issued after* the adjournment of the legislature, 1860, third edition: Farley’s Map of the newly discovered Tramóntame Silver Mines in Southern California (186BB Ransome and DooIitileffiVew map of the State of California, 1863. «Statutes, 1853 : 119. MÉffiSéej correspondence January, 1916, in Archives of County Surveyor, Los Angeles.LOS ASeE$B COUNíPC 79 names.1!^’ Furthermore, this more easterly point is in keeping with the strict ►reading of rfhe act, the line to procedí along the “western and northern boundary of Cucaimonga Ranch to the ravine of Cucaimonga.” The San Antonio ravine lies along the western side of the rancho, and to go up this ravine would make it impossible to follow along the “northern boundary of Cucaimonga Ranch.” But the ravine or cañón now named Cucamonga meets this requirement. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the established line is based upon the assumption ^at the ravine now called San Antonio is identical with the “ravine of Cucaimonga” men- tioned in the act, the weight of evidence does not support this interpretation, but indicates clearly that the present Cuca- monga cañón was the^^^^^^d by the statute.18 Having determined which of these ravines was the one intended by the act, there cffl be no question as to the further course of this boundary. The law reads: ^■|hence up said ravine to i^^R^Lfn the Coast Range; th^He dueH^rth to ftu^Rirthern boundary flWBs Angeles County ffl9 The Acts of 1856 and 1857. In !^fe^an act was passed amending the act of 1851. The entire boundary of the county was then redefined, in an attempt to clear up some of the uncertain^^Ki the earlier act. This statute made no change in the description of the line as far as the point upon the summit of iffl Santa Susana Hills; from there, however, ir was to run, “in a, dircot^raato the corner of the land called Cagféb, where it approaches nearer to, or land called Tej^j; thence along thedifflts of thq-yanH) or of land called the Tejón, up and ^itern' to the north-^^Hpnmost corner along the northern liiHof the said tract Hancho, as shown by plat in the U.. S. Land*QfJnJij was surveyed in Mayy*i865, and showsnames as at present. The suj|| pOhnding^HvJ'.was surveyed into towns^Ws’&nd sections in ®H5;andi 1884 and thcfSEffl|ffl®plats also shpw^^^^^HRs as now u^d.-'t.' 18An ^BH™>n of the. report and field notes, 6, does Em indicate any: effort on his part these *TObogra.bhitS|a features BBneHi the act. 18The present boundary is legally based upon this line. Attention will be directed later to the lack of harmony between the line of survey and the statute line.80 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BUUliDARIES. of land called tffl Tejon to its north-easternmost corneal thence in a northeast line to the eastern boundary of?«$i State.”20 There canine no question that the two tracts of land here referred to are the same as the present Castac and Tejon ranchos, although those ranchos were not surveyed unfla ■ich later date and were therefore iH. indefinite tracts, the location of ^^Koundary line ha^^^^HLeterminec^Bor the purposes fflthis study, according to the later approved sur- veys. The remaining (clauses of this statute present glaring incon- [^RiOiies and lis* they stand are meaningless, for the ideas of two distinct and conflicting legTsMtive acts have here been combined.21 In the firstB^He the boundaries of the county are described as running firoin the? Tejon Rancho northeast to thihiing the nor^^^^Borner of Los Angeles. ”23 The point of differenc^Jo^een this and the line of 1856 is the location of the northwest corner of Upon an examination of the section referred to, that defining the south- west corner of Kern, this comer is found to be located at the point where the sout^^H line of township nine north, San Bernardino base, intersects the summit of the Coast Range. KEf the point on tl^^Hnmit of the Santa SusanaB the same as that previously accepted, is no reason to think other- pgjge. in view of the known topographical conditions, there can be no dispute as to ^^Broper location®5 this boundary. The line ran from B point at thBanta Susana Bass to the plae&ywhere the scj^^^B iineB Kern County strikes the summit of the Coast Ridge. The United States topographical gmapBlesignate thi^^B Sawmill Mountain, a Bort distanc® 22 Statutes, 18 5 7:165. BBolitical Code&XMZ. § 3945.82 CALIFORNLT^OUNTY BOUNDARIES. wêstroî Mount Pinos.24 From the point just considered, the boundary of the county followed lines already established, running along thb SWithern line of Kern R San Bernardino, then south along the western boundary of that county to San Diego County and thence southwest to the Pacific Ocean. Eastern Boundary Survey, 1876. In 1876 the supervisors] H Los Angeles County authorized the surveyor to make a survey Hthe eastern boundary of the county.« This was done the following year the report submitted February 5th, 1877.26 Since that tame this line as surveyed has observed as tfilffifounty boundary. A comparison of the records of this survey together with the legislative acts upon which it wa^^^^TOM to be based shows a careless disregard [fÉr fhd latter, in part to difficulties in identify- ing fh® places named. This line as defined in the Political Cod^^^^^^^^^^Hupon^^RMof^i^^^^^^^BSan Ber- nardino ^^Hty was created. The difference in opinion regarding tlRid^^R of “the rav|^ CucRnonga” has been noted in discussing the^^H of 1853. The surveyors who located and marked the present boundary may have assumed that San Antonio Ravine was the ravine referred to in the act. Even if Bjjs assumption be accepted as correct, a con- ciliées. which the evidence does not seem to justify, the remainder of the boundary still is not in harmony with the pjp-tute provisi(^^Hor, instead of running due north from the source of this ravine, as providecf in the act, the boundary as surveyed proceeds in a straight line along the general course San Antonio Ravine R Mount San Antonio, thence northwesterly to the southeast comer of township five north, range eight west, and ÏJlieRe eRJi along tlHrange line. This is not a doe north line. In 1917 th^Sgh a dispute between San Bernardino and Kern counties th£t line, originally a 24This point lies approximately 16 mileS^^^^Rÿ f^^^^^^^^KPporner of HR- county as at presen^^ŒBRzed. The topographical sheets of the! U. S.'Geological Survey, prepared BSHring the summer of 1903, give a full aM^Bpurate description of allH^B|^Qts in question, as they were known at thatH^Q At is pis§b&bl«B^^^^^Ea:ift^Ra;n10fcusana moun- tains ^^^KrKa.ppl^D in a xnoiSB^^^Bannér'^^^Hformerly. hut other- wise the points can differ but lij^Q^^^B^ffiCon^^QI^Hevised edition of Survey Map of California and Nefadt^Rssued by author- ity of the regents of the 1874, shows ^^^K^inoatto lie within Los Angeles County. 25Los An^WBR:ounty Archiv^-Minutes'.df Supervisors, VI, 301. 426-438.Los Angeles-Ventura Boundary84 CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOUNDARIES. continuation of the^Edf Angel&3San Bernardino boundary, was placed further east and more strictly in aecordancelwith the original intentior^of 'the a&f£ Ventura Boundary Survey, 1881. The location of the western boundary has been considered in dealing, with earlier legislation. H has been shown that this line as far north as the norl&^^Korner of the Rancho Las Virgene9 Triu^^B was ^^Hestab^^^^Bn 1851, and^^^^fthat time has been unchanged by subsequent legisla^^^^Hrom the Las Virgenes Rancho to line hhl been redefined and modified several t^^S In the discussion of the lines and^^^l, their location was quite fully considered, especially in ^^Hence to th^Rcdtion of the point on fl summit of the Santa fflsana Hills. The evidence poeths to in^^^^Bthat this pc^^Hnear the Santa Susana ¡Pass' adopted by^^Hact of 18Sir, has remained relatively a fixed point to resent day. Unfortunately, however, the same thing can not b6 said of those parts of the line north and south of this point. In 1881 the surveyors of the two ia8nligucraspcounties surveyed, and marked the line asH has l&Ao^been observed. From the Las Virgenes Ranchqj this line instead of running in a direct line follows the southern and eastern boundary of the Simi Rancho, as previously surveyed, to the Susana Pass. Continuing, however, from this point to the northwest 6f the county, the legal basis for the lin^^^^Mto have been ignored. Had the line been made to follow the directions as given in the Political Code tn$* northwest corner of the county would have been located some miles further west than at present, thus adding iHLos Angeles County territory aggregating approximately 300 square miles. The report of the survey as preserved in ^^Hounty archives ir^^^S that the’'sur- veyors did not ei^^ffior to follow the l^re as defined by the Political Code inffi72^^H^elie(9pon their knowledge of the location of the line, whi9 however, was the line defined by the earlier afflof 18116.27 The line as surveyed, following thej line of 1856, was subseque^^H approv^B by the supervisors rLos Angeles County Archives,^Minutes of Supervisors, VII, 383-393.LOS ANGELES COUNTY. 85 and has since been the recognized boundary line, the pro- visions of the code being entirely ignored. Orange County Line, 1889. The section of the political Code as adopted in 1872 has in general remained unchanged except in so far as it has been superseded by legislation creat- ing Orange County,28 rae northern line of that fflmty then becoming the southern boundary of Los Angeles County. Beginning in the f^^fic Ocean at the m^th of Coyote Creek this boundary was defined as proceeding northeasterly up this creek until its intersection with the line between town- ships t^ft&south, ten and eleven west; thence north on this line to the northwest corner of section six, township three south, range tffl west, thence east on the northern line of township to the San Bernardino boundary. At the time of the codifica- tion of the county boundary laws in 1919 the Los Angeles- Orange county line was described in a more pik&tse manner.29 Proposed Change in Ventura Boundary, 1919. The act of 1919, codifying the boundary laws, as first prepared fixed the Ventura-Los Angeles |fne along the survey of 1881, thereby endeavoring cfb make the statutory line agree with the actual boundary. By amendment this boundary was changed in accordance with the expressed wishes of the boards of super- visors of the two counties. The line adopted in 1919 ran as follows :80 “3927. Los Angeles. Beginning at the tetersesction of the southwesterly boundary line of tra State of California with a line drawn normal to the shore of the Pacific Ocean from the southwesterly corner of fractional section twen^^^^fl township one south, range twenty west, San Bernardino Base and Meridian; thence northerly in a straight line three miles to the southwesterly corner of said fractional section ; thence north along the. wH lines of fractional section twenty-seven and sec- tions twenty-two, fifteen, ten and three, township one south, range twenty west, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, to line number three of the boundary of the Rancho El Cone jo; thence northeasterly, southeasterly, “Statwies^R 89 :123. »Political Code (1919), §3938. a°Ibid., § 3927. 7—2490086 California, northeasterly and northerly along lines numbers three, four, i*e, six and seven of the boundary \ * A i / 1 ■» ft * 1 P # \ < ^ § it « \ 4 * < t ' ' ♦ * î' V *• V * » ft *1 ft \ i <»’ t a ft *1 « 1 * ^ • , * i |§ V ' * •/ ft c % 4 *' , * s' ^ « 1 * A € ft t 4 ** • * d * * •ft 1 , 1 . •* r 1 \ l ♦ c * \INDEX Alameda, 11, 25, 39, 40, 44, 50, 59. Alpine, 27, 28, 33, 35, 41, 47, 59. Alta, 33. Alturas, 19, 21, 25, 26, 31. Amador, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 25, 27, 28, 32, 43, 45, 49, 59. Anaheiml33, 44. Aromas, 17. Aveno, 4. Benicia, 2. Bidwell, 46. Branciforte, 4. Buchanan, 18. Buena Vista, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 30, 46. Butte, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 32, 33, 36, 40, 45, 46, 49150, 55, 59. Calaveras, 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, 20, 21, 24, 28, 30, 41, 59. Canby, 38. Chico, 26, 40. Ooloma, 2. Colusa, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 32, 36, 44, 45, 59. Contra Costa, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 47, 59. Coso', 26, 28, 29, 30. Del Norte, 17, 18, 19, 36, 38, 43, 45, 46, 50, 52, 60. Donner, 33, 35, 37. El Dorado, 2, 4, 5, 12, 15, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 53, 60. Escondido, 46. Esmeralda, 24. Eureka, 18. Folsom, 19. Fremont, 2. Fresno, 16, 21, 24, 32, 33, 37, 39, 40, 43, 45, 50, 51, 52, 60. Glenn, 43, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 55, 60. Granite, 31. Humboldt, 11, 19, 26, 37, 38, 50* 60. Imperial, 50, 51, 60. Inyo, 30, 33, 36, 37, 60, 61. Jefferson, 35. Kern, 15, 30, 33, 36, 55, 61, 72, 76, 77, 81, 82. Kings, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52, 61. Klamath, 7, 15, 17, 19, 37, 38, 40,, Lake, 15, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 37, 41, 43, 51, 52, 55, 61. Lassen, 28, 29, 31, 37, 38, 49, 50, 62. Leco, 14. Lorraine, 43, 44. Los Alamos, 41, 43. Los Angeles, 4, 5, 7, 11, 17, 19, 26, 30, 33, 36, 37, 41, 44, 46, 52, 56, 57, 58, 62, 68-84. Madera 45, 47, 53, 62. Manache, 39. Marin, 2, 4, 5, 13, 21, 32, 33, 62. Mariposa, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 24, 32, 33, 37, 53, 62, 68. Marshall, 23. Mendocino, 2, 4, 8, 12, 15, 19, 21, 25, 29, 37, 49, 50, 51, 55, 61, 62. Merced, 13, 16, 17, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 43, 50, 62. Modoc, 35, 38, 62. Mokelumne, 12, 18, 20, 23. Molino, 4. Mono, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37, 62, 63. Monterey, 2, 4, 5, 7, 13, 16, 17, 25, 27, 30, 35, 36, 38, 39, 63. Mount Diablo, 2. Napa, 4, 5, 8, 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 37, 61, 63. Natoma, 31, 32, 44. Nevada, 6, 8, 17, 33, 35, 39, 52, 63. Oro, 2. Orange, 39, 41, 43, 44, 47, 56, 57, 63, 72, 80, 83. Orestimba, 33, 35. Pajaro, 13, 16. Pautah, 9, 23. Placer, 6, 18, 19, 27, 31, 35, 36, 39, 44, 50, 53, 63. Plumas, 4, 12, 17, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 49, 63. Pomona, 44, 45. Purísima, 40. Putnam, 46. Reading, 2, 26. Remondo, 16. * Riverside, 41, 45, 56, 57, 64. Sacramento, 2, 4, 5, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 30, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41, 44, 46, 50, 64. San Antonio, 46. San Benito, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 50, 52, 53, 64. San Bernardino, 11, 18, 19, 26, 36, 41, 43, 44,* 45, 46, 55, 56, 57, 64, 69, 72, 73, 75, 77, 79, 82, 83. San Diego, 2, 4, 517133, 36, 41, 45, 46, 51, 52, 56, 64, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77.92 INDEX. San Francisco, 2, 4, 5, 16, 56, 64. San Jacinto, 45, 46. San Joaquin, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 18, 20| 21, 23, 25, 30, 33, 40, 41, 50, 64. San Jose, 2. San Leandro, 43, 44. San Luis Obispo, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 25, 27, 33, 36, 41, 43, 64, 65. San Mateo, 16, 18, 25, 32, 40, 49, 50, 56, 65. Santa Ana, 44. Santa Barbara, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 21, 30, 33, 35, 36, 37, 40, 43, 46, 65, 68, 71. Santa Clara, 4, 5, 11, 13, 16, 17, 25, 40, 52, 53, 65. Santa Cruz, 2, 5, 13,16, 25, 32, 39, 40, 53, 65. Santa Rita, 46. Santa Ynez, 46. Shasta, 2, 4, 6, 7, 16, 17, 18, '26, 27, 29, 36, 37, 39, 49, 50, 65. Sierra, 7, 8, 17, 19, 21, 23, 27, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39, 52, 65. Siskiyou, 7, 8, 35, 36, 37, 38, 431 45, 50, 65. Solano, 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, 18, 27, 39, 49, 66. Sonoma, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 32, 55, 62, 66. Stanislaus, 12, 13, 20, 21, 23, 25, 30, 31, 32, 35, 66. Suisun, 16. Summit, 17, 19, 21, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38. Surprise, 37. Sutter, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19, 23(27, 29, 36, 45, 66. -Tehachapi, 46. Tehama, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 27, 28, '39, 49, 66. Tejon, 26. Trinity, 4, 5, 6, 11, 15, 37, 38, 50, 66. Tulare, 7. 8, 15, 16, 17, 21, 24, 26, 29, 80, 36, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 50, 66( 76. Tuolumne, 2, 4, 6, 12, 13, 19, 21, 28, 53, 67. Vallejo, 39. Ventura, 21, 33, 35, 36, 37, 47, 56, 57, 58, 67, 79-82. Washington, 12. Washoe, 23, 24. Yolo, 2, 4, 5, 7, 18, 31, 37, 46, 49, 67. Yosemite, 19. Yuba, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 31, 49, 67. O 24900 4-28 600X 4 M14 DAY USE RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT TO ■■«► 202 Main Library____ ___________ LOAN PERIOD 1 HOME USE 2 3 4 5 6 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS Mhonth loans may be renewed by calling 642-3405 6-month loans may be recharged by bringing books to Circulation Desk Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date _____________DUE AS STAMPED BELOW_____________________ FORM NO. DD 6, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY BERKELEY, CA 94720>832 / ■ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY