Population.—The population of California increased in successive decades from 1850 to 1910 respectively by 310.3, 47.3, 54.3, 40.3, 22.4 and 60.1%. (The percentage of increase in 1900-1910 was exceeded in Washington, Oklahoma, Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota and Oregon.) In 1910 the total population was 2,377,549, or 15.2 per sq. m. In 1900 there were 116 incorporated towns and cities; and of the total population 43.3% was urban,—i.e.resident in cities (11 in number) of 8000 or more inhabitants. These 11 cities were: San Francisco (pop. 342,782), Los Angeles (102,479), Oakland (66,960), Alameda (16,464), Berkeley (13,214),—the last three being suburbs of San Francisco, and the last the seat of the state university,—Sacramento, the state capital (29,282), San José (21,500), San Diego (17,700), Stockton (17,506), Fresno (12,470), and Pasadena (9117). Eight other cities had populations of more than 5000—Riverside City (7973), Vallejo (7965), Eureka (7327), Santa Rosa (6673), Santa Barbara (6587), San Bernardino (6156), Santa Cruz (5659), and Pomona (5526).
Of the entire population in 1900 persons of foreign birth or parentage (one or both parents being foreign) constituted 54.2 and those of native birth were 75.3%. Of the latter six-tenths were born in California. The foreign element included 45,753 Chinese (a falling off of 25,313 since 1890), and 10,151 Japanese (an increase of 9004 in the same decade). Twenty-two foreign countries contributed over 1000 residents each, the leading ones being the United Kingdom (91,638), Germany (72,449), Canada (29,618; 27,408 being English Canadians), Italy (22,777), Sweden (14,549), France (12,256), Portugal (12,068), Switzerland (10,974), Japan, Denmark, and Mexico, in the order named. Persons of negro descent numbered 11,045. Almost all the Indians of the state are taxed as citizens. In 1906 of 611,464 members of religious denominations 354,408 were Roman Catholics, 64,528 Methodist Episcopalians, 37,682 Presbyterians, 26,390 Congregationalists, 24,801 Baptists, 21,317 Protestant Episcopalians, 11,371 Lutherans, and 9,110 members of Eastern Orthodox churches. A peculiar feature in the population statistics of California is the predominance of males, which in 1900 was 156,009; the Asiatic element accounts for a third of this number. Since 1885 the eight counties south of the Tehachapi Range, which are known collectively and specifically as Southern California have greatly advanced in population. In 1880 their population was 7.3, in 1890 17.2, and in 1900 20.1% of the total population of the state. The initial impulse to this increase was the beginning of the “fruit epoch” in these counties, combined with a railway “rate-war” following the completion to the coast in 1885 of the Santa Fe, and an extraordinary land boom prevailing from 1886 to 1888. The conjuncture of circumstances, and the immigration it induced, were unusual. The growth of the South, as of the rest of the state, has been continuous and steady.
The Indians were prominent in early Californian history, but their progress toward their present insignificance began far back in the Spanish period. It proceeded much more rapidly after the restraining influence of the missions was removed, leaving them free to revert to savagery; and the downward progress of the race was fearfully accelerated during the mining period, when they were abused, depraved, and in large numbers killed. There have been no Indian wars in California’s annals, but many butcheries. The natives have declined exceedingly in number since 1830, in 1900 numbering 15,377. They have always been mild-tempered, low, and unintelligent, and are to-day a poor and miserable race. They are all called “Digger Indians” indiscriminately, although divided by a multiplicity of tongues.
Government and Institutions.—In the matter of constitution-making California has been conservative, having had only two between 1849 and 1910. The first was framed by a convention at Monterey in 1849, and ratified by the people and proclaimed by the United States military governor in the same year. The present constitution, framed by a convention in 1878-1879, came into full effect in 1880, and was subsequently amended. It was the work of the labour party, passed at a time of high discontent, and goes at great length into the details of government, as was demanded by the state of public opinion. The qualifications required for the suffrage are in no way different from those common throughout the Union, except that by a constitutional amendment of 1894 it is necessary for a voter to be able to read the state constitution and write his name. As compared with the earlier constitution it showed many radical advances toward popular control, the power of the legislature being everywhere curtailed. The power of legislation was taken from it by specific inhibition in thirty-one subjects before within its power; its control of the public domain, its powers in taxation, and its use of the state credit were carefully safe-guarded. “Lobbying” was made a felony; provisions were inserted against lotteries and stock-exchange gambling, to tax and control common carriers and great corporations, and to regulate telegraph, telephone, storage and wharfage charges. The powers of the executive department were also somewhat curtailed. For the judiciary, provisions were made for expediting trials and decisions. Notable was the innovation that agreement by three-fourths of a jury should be sufficient in civil cases and that a jury might be waived in minor criminal cases, a provision which of course was based on experience under the Mexican law. All these changes in the organic law reflect bitter experience after 1850; and, read with the history of those years as a commentary, few American constitutions are more instructive. The constitution of 1879 corresponds very closely to the ordinary state constitution of to-day. The incorporation of banks issuing circulating notes is forbidden. Marriage is not only declared a civil contract, but the laws expressly recognize that the mere consent of the parties is adequate to constitute a binding marriage. The union of whites with persons of African descent is forbidden. Felons twice convicted may not be pardoned except on the recommendation of a majority of the judges of the supreme court. Judges and state executive officers are elected for terms longer than is usual in the different states (supreme judges 12 years, executive officers 4 years). These few provisionsare mentioned, not as of particular importance in themselves, but as exceptions of some moment to the usual type of state Constitutions (seeUnited States). The Australian ballot was introduced in 1891. In local government there are no deviations from the usual types that demand notice. In the matter of liquor-laws there is local option, and a considerable proportion of the towns and smaller cities, particularly in the south, adopt prohibition. In most of the rest high licence is more or less strictly enforced.
The total assessed valuation of property grew from $666,399,985 in 1880 to $1,217,648,683 in 1900 and $1,879,728,763 in 1907. In 1904, when the U.S. Census Report showed California to be the twenty-first state of the Union in population but the sixth in wealth, the total estimated true value of all property was $4,115,491,106, of which $2,664,472,025 was the value of real property and improvements thereon. The per capita wealth of the state was then reported as $2582.32, being exceeded only by the three sparsely settled states of Montana, Wyoming and Nevada. In 1898 California had the largest savings-bank deposit per depositor ($637.75) of any state in the Union; theper caputdeposit was $110 in 1902, and about one person in seven was a depositor. The state bonded debt in 1907 amounted to three and a half million dollars, of which all but $767,529.03 was represented by bonds purchased by the state and held for the school and university funds; for the common school fund on the 1st of July 1907 there were held bonds for $4,890,950, and $800,000 in cash available for investment; for the university fund there were held $751,000 in state bonds, and a large amount in other securities. The total bonded county indebtedness was $4,879,600 in 1906 (not including that of San Francisco, a consolidated city and county, which was $4,568,600). A homestead, entered upon record and limited to a value of $5000 if held by the head of a family and to a value of $1000 if held by one not the head of a family, is exempt from liability for debts, except for a mortgage, a lien before it was claimed as a homestead or a lien afterward for improvements. A homestead held by a married man cannot be mortgaged without consent of his wife.
Under an act approved on the 25th of March 1903 a state board of charities and corrections,—consisting of six members, not more than three being of the same political party, appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the senate, and holding office for twelve years, two retiring at the end of each quadrennium,—investigates, examines, and makes “reports upon the charitable, correctional and penal institutions of the state,” excepting the Veterans’ Home at Yountville, Napa county, and the Woman’s Relief Corps Home at Evergreen, Santa Clara county. There are state prisons with convicts working under the public account system, at San Quentin, Marin county, and Folsom, Sacramento county. The Preston (Sonoma county) School of Industry, for older boys, and the Whittier (Los Angeles county) State School, for girls and for boys under sixteen, are the state reformatories, each having good industrial and manual training departments. There are state hospitals for the insane at Agnew, Santa Clara county; at Stockton, San Joaquin county; at Napa, Napa county; at Patton, San Bernardino county; and, with a colony of tubercular patients, at Ukiah, Mendocino county. In 1906 the ratio of insane confined to institutions, to the total population, was 1 to every 270. Also under state control are the home for care and training of feeble-minded children, at Eldridge, Sonoma county; the institution for the deaf and the blind at Berkeley, and the home of mechanical trades for the adult blind at Oakland. A Juvenile Court Law was enacted in 1903 and modified in 1905.
The educational system of California is one of the best in the country. The state board of education is composed of the governor of the state, who is its president; the superintendent of public instruction, who is its secretary; the presidents of the five normal schools and of the University of California, and the professor of pedagogy in the university. Sessions are long in primary schools, and attendance was made compulsory in 1874 (and must not be less than two-thirds of all school days). The state controlled the actual preparation and sale of text-books for the common schools from 1885 to 1903, when the Perry amendment to the constitution (ratified by popular vote in 1884) was declared to mean that such text-books must be manufactured within the state, but that the texts need not be prepared in California. The experiment of state-prepared text-books was expensive, and its effect was bad on the public school system, as such text-books were almost without exception poorly written and poorly printed. After 1903 copyrights were leased by the state. Secondary schools are closely affiliated with, and closely inspected by, the state university. All schools are generously supported, salaries are unusually good, and pension funds in all cities are authorized by state laws. The value of school property in 1900 was $19,135,722, and the expenditure for the public schools $6,195,000; in 1906 the value of school property was $29,013,150, and the expenditure for public schools $10,815,857. The average school attendance for all minors of school age (5-20 years) was 59.9%; of those native-born 61.5, of those foreign-born 34.6; of coloured children, including Asiatics and Indians, 35.8, and of white, 60.8%. In 1900, 6.2% of the males of voting age, and 2.4% of the native-born males of voting age, were illiterate (could not write). Some 3% of the total population could not speak English; Chinese and Japanese constituting almost half of the number, foreign-born whites somewhat less, and Indians and native-born whites of foreign parentage together less than a tenth of the total. Of the higher educational institutions of the state the most important are the state university at Berkeley and Leland Stanford Jr. University at Palo Alto. The former is supported with very great liberality by the state; and the latter, the endowment of which is private (the state, however, exempting it from taxation), is one of the richest educational institutions of America. In 1906 there were also five state normal schools (at Chico, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and San José), and a considerable number of denominational colleges. There is also a state polytechnic school at San Luis Obispo (1903).
History.—The name “California” was taken from Ordoñez de Montalvo’s romance of chivalryLas Sergas de Esplandian(Madrid, 1510), in which is told of black Amazons ruling an island of this name “to the right of the Indies, very near the quarter of the terrestrial paradise.” The name was given to the unknown north-west before 1540. It does not show that the namers were prophets or wise judges, for the Spaniards really knew California not at all for more than two centuries, and then only as a genial but rather barren land; but it shows that theconquistadoresmixed poetry with business and illustrates the glamour thrown about the “Northern Mystery.” Necessarily the name had for a long time no definite geographical meaning. The lower Colorado river was discovered in 1540, but the explorers did not penetrate California; in 1542-1543 Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo explored at least the southern coast; in 1579 Sir Francis Drake repaired his ships in some Californian port (almost certainly not San Francisco Bay), and named the land New Albion; two Philippine ships visited the coast in 1584 and 1595, and in 1602 and 1603 Sebastian Vizcaino discovered the sites of San Diego and Monterey. There was apparently no increase of knowledge thereafter for 150 years. Most of this time California was generally supposed to be an island or a group of islands. Jesuit missionaries entered Lower California as early as 1697, maintaining themselves there until Charles III.’s expulsion in 1767 of all Jesuits from his dominions; but not until Russian explorations in Alaska from 1745-1765 did the Spanish government show interest in Upper California. Because of these explorations, and also the long-felt need of a refitting point on the California coast for the galleons from Manila, San Diego was occupied in 1769 and Monterey in 1770 as a result of urgent orders from Charles III. San Francisco Bay was discovered in the former year. Meanwhile the Jesuit property in the Peninsula had been turned over to Franciscan monks, but in 1772 the Dominicans took over the missions, and the Franciscans not unwillingly withdrew to Upper California, where they were to thrive remarkably for some fifty years.
This is the mission period—or from an economic standpoint,the pastoral period—of Californian history. In all, twenty-one missions were established between 1769 and 1823. TheThe rule of the missions.leader in this movement was a really remarkable man, Miguel José Serra (known as Junipero Serra, 1713-1784), a friar of very great ability, purest piety, and tireless zeal. He possessed great influence in Mexico and Madrid. “The theory of the mission system,” says H.H. Bancroft, “was to make the savages work out their own salvation and that of the priests also.” The last phrase scarcely does justice to the truly humane and devout intentions of the missionaries; but in truth the mission system was a complete failure save in the accumulation of material wealth. Economically the missions were the blood and life of the province. At them the neophytes worked up wool, tanned hides, prepared tallow, cultivated hemp and wheat, raised a few oranges, made soap, some iron and leather articles, mission furniture, and a very little wine and olive oil. Such as it was, this was about the only manufacturing or handicraft in California. Besides, the hides and tallow yielded by the great herds of cattle at the missions were the support of foreign trade and did much toward paying the expenses of the government. The Franciscans had no sympathy for profane knowledge, even among the Mexicans,—sometimes publicly burning quantities of books of a scientific or miscellaneous nature; and the reading of Fénelon’sTélémaquebrought excommunication on a layman. As for the intellectual development of the neophytes the mission system accomplished nothing; save the care of their souls they received no instruction, they were virtually slaves, and were trained into a fatal dependence, so that once coercion was removed they relapsed at once into barbarism. It cannot be said, however, that Anglo-Americans have done much better for them.
The political upheavals in Spain and Mexico following 1808 made little stir in this far-off province. Joseph was never recognized, and allegiance was sworn to Ferdinand (1809). When revolution broke out in Mexico (1811), California remained loyal, suffering much by the cessation of supplies from Mexico, the resulting deficits falling as an added burden upon the missions. The occupation of Monterey for a few hours by a Buenos Aires privateer (1818) was the only incident of actual war that California saw in all these years; and it, in truth, was a ridiculous episode, fit introduction to the bloodless play-wars, soon to be inaugurated in Californian politics. In 1820 the Spanish constitution was duly sworn to in California, and in 1822 allegiance was given to Mexico. Under the Mexican Federal constitution of 1824 Upper California, first alone (it was made a distinct province in 1804) and then with Lower California, received representation in the Mexican congress.
The following years before American occupation may be divided into two periods of quite distinct interest. From about 1840 to 1848 foreign relations are the centre of interest. From 1824 to 1840 there is a complicated and not uninteresting movement of local politics and a preparation for the future,—the missions fall, republicanism grows, the sentiment of local patriotism becomes a political force, there is a succession of sectional controversies and personal struggles among provincial chiefs, an increase of foreign commerce, of foreign immigration and of foreign influence.
The Franciscans were mostly Spaniards in blood and in sympathies. They viewed with displeasure and foreboding the fall of Iturbide’s empire and the creation of the republic. They were not treasonable, but talked much, refusing allegiance to the new government; and as they controlled the resources of the colony and the good will of the Indians, they felt their strength against the local authority; besides, they were its constant benefactors. But secularization was in harmony with the growth of republican ideas. There was talk in California of the rights of man and neophytes, and of the sins of friars. The missions were never intended to be permanent. The missionaries were only the field workers sent out to convert and civilize the Indians, who were to be turned over then to the regular clergy, the monks pushing further onward into new fields. This was the well-established policy of Spain. In 1813 the Spanish Cortes ordered the secularization of all missions in America that were ten years old, but this decree was not published in California until 1821. After that secularization was the burning question in Californian politics. In 1826 a beginning toward it was made in partially emancipating the neophytes, but active and thorough secularization of the missions did not begin until 1834; by 1835 it was consummated at sixteen missions out of twenty-one, and by 1840 at all. At some of the missions the monks acted later as temporary curates for the civil authorities, until in 1845-1846 all the missions were sold by the government. Unfortunately the manner of carrying it out discredited a policy neither unjust nor bad in itself, increasing its importance in the political struggles of the time. The friars were in no way mistreated: Californians did not share Mexican resentments against Spaniards, and the national laws directed against these were in the main quietly ignored in the province. In 1831 the mission question led to a rising against the reactionary clerical rule of Governor Manuel Victoria. He was driven out of the province.
This was the first of the opéra bouffe wars. The causes underlying them were serious enough. In the first place, there was a growing dissatisfaction with Mexican rule, which accomplished nothing tangible for good in California,—although its plans were as excellent as could be asked had there only been peace and means to realize them; however, it made the mistake of sending convicts as soldiers. Californians were enthusiastic republicans, but found the benefits of republicanism slow in coming. The resentment of the Franciscans, the presence of these and other reactionaries and of Spaniards, the attitude of foreign residents, and the ambitions of leading Californian families united to foment and propagate discontent. The feeling against Mexicans—those “de la otra banda” as they were significantly termed—invaded political and even social life. In the second place, there was growing jealousy between northern towns and southern towns, northern families and southern families. These entered into disputes over the location of the capital and the custom-house, in the Franciscan question also (because the friars came some from a northern and some from a southern college), and in the question of the distribution of commands in the army and offices in the civil government. Then there was the mission question; this became acuter about 1833 when the friars began to destroy, or sell and realize on, the mission property. The next decade was one of plunder and ruin in mission history. Finally there was a real growth of republicanism, and some rulers—notably Victoria—were wholly out of sympathy with anything but personal, military rule. From all these causes sprang much unrest and considerable agitation.
In 1828-1829 there was a revolution of unpaid soldiers aided by natives, against alleged but not serious abuses, that really aimed at the establishment of an independent native government. In 1831 Governor Victoria was deposed; in 1836 Governor Mariano Chico was frightened out of the province; in 1836 Governor Nicolas Gutierrez and in 1844-1845 Governor Manuel Micheltorena were driven out of office. The leading natives headed this last rising. There was talk of independence, but sectional and personal jealousies could not be overcome. In all these wars there was not enough blood shed to discolour a sword. The rising of 1836 against Gutierrez seems to-day most interesting, for it was in part a protest against the growth of federalism in Mexico. California was even deferred to as (declared to be seems much too strong a statement) an Estado Libre y Soberano; and from 1836 to 1838, when the revolutionary governor, Juan B. Alvarado, was recognized by the Mexican government, which had again inclined to federalism and, besides, did not take the matter very seriously, the local government rested simply on local sentiment. The satisfaction of this ended all difficulties.
By this time foreign influence was showing itself of importance. Foreign commerce, which of course was contraband, being contrary to all Spanish laws, was active by the beginning of the 19th century. It was greatly stimulatedAmerican immigration.during the Spanish-American revolutions (the Lima and Panama trade dating from about 1813), for, as the Californian authorities practically ignored the law, smugglingwas unnecessary; this was, indeed, much greater after 1822 under the high duties (in 1836-1840 generally about 100%) of the Mexican tariffs. In the early ’forties some three-fourths of the imports, even at Monterey itself, are said to have paid no duties, being landed by agreement with the officials. Wholesale and retail trade flourished all along the coast in defiance of prohibitory laws. American trade was by far most important. The Boston traders—whose direct trade began in 1822, but the indirect ventures long before that—were men of decided influence in California. The trade supplied almost all the clothing, merchandise and manufactures used in the province; hides and furs were given in exchange. If foreign trade was not to be received, still less were foreign travellers, under the Spanish laws. However, the Russians came in 1805, and in 1812 founded on Bodega Bay a post they held till 1841, whence they traded and hunted (even in San Francisco Bay) for furs. From the day of the earliest foreign commerce sailors and traders of divers nationalities began to settle in the province. In 1826 American hunters first crossed to the coast; in 1830 the Hudson’s Bay Company began operations in northern California. By this time the foreign element was considerable in number, and it doubled in the next six years, although the true overland immigration from the United States began only about 1840. As a class foreigners were respected, and they were influential beyond proportion to their numbers. They controlled commerce, and were more energetic, generally, than were the natives; many were naturalized, held generous grants of land, and had married into Californian families, not excluding the most select and influential. Most prominent of Americans in the interior was John A. Sutter (1803-1880), who held a grant of eleven square leagues around the present site of Sacramento, whereon he built a fort. His position as a Mexican official, and the location of his fortified post on the border, commanding the interior country and lying on the route of the overland immigrants, made him of great importance in the years preceding and immediately following American occupation; although he was a man of slight abilities and wasted his great opportunities. Other settlers in the coast towns were also of high standing and importance. In short, Americans were hospitably received and very well treated by the government and the people; despite some formalities and ostensible surveillance there was no oppression whatever. There was, however, some jealousy of the ease with which Americans secured land grants, and an entirely just dislike of “bad” Americans. The sources from which all the immigrants were recruited made inevitable an element of lawlessness and truculence. The Americans happened to predominate. Along with a full share of border individuality and restlessness they had the usual boisterous boastfulness and a racial contempt, which was arrogantly proclaimed, for Mexicans,—often too for Mexican legal formalities. The early comers were a conservativeAmerican and European intriques.force in politics, but many of the later comers wanted to make California a second Texas. As early as 1805 (at the time of James Monroe’s negotiations for Florida), there are traces of Spain’s fear of American ambitions even in this far-away province. It was a fear she felt for all her American possessions. Spain’s fears passed on to Mexico, the Russians being feared only less than Americans. An offer was made by President Jackson in 1835 to buy the northern part of California, including San Francisco Bay, but was refused. In 1836 and 1844 Americans were prominent in the incidents of revolution; divided in opinion in both years they were neutral in the actual “hostilities” of the latter, but some gave active support to the governor in 1836. From 1836 on, foreign interference was much talked about. Americans supposed that Great Britain wished to exchange Mexican bonds for California; France also was thought to be watching for an opening for gratifying supposed ambitions; and all parties saw that even without overt act by the United States the progress of American settlement seemed likely to gain them the province, whose connexion with Mexico had long been a notoriously loose one. A considerable literature written by travellers of all the countries named had before this discussed all interests. In 1840 for too active interest in politics some Americans and Englishmen were temporarily expelled.
In 1842 Commodore T.A.C. Jones (1789-1858) of the United States navy, believing that war had broken out between his country and Mexico and that a British force was about to seize California, raised the American flag over Monterey (October 21st), but finding that he had acted on misinformation he lowered the flag next day with due ceremony and warm apology. In California this incident served only to open up agreeable personal relations and social courtesies, but it did not tend to clarify the diplomatic atmosphere. It showed the ease of seizing the country, the indifference of the natives, and the resolution of the United States government. Mexico sought to prevent American immigration, but the local authorities would not enforce such orders, however positive. Between 1843 and 1845, Great Britain, the United States, and France opened consulates. By 1845 there was certainly an agreement in opinion among all American residents (then not 700 in number) as regards the future of the country. The policy of France and Great Britain in these years is unknown. That of the United States is fully known. In 1845 the American consul at Monterey, Thomas O. Larkin (1802-1858), was instructed to work for the secession of California from Mexico, without overt aid from the United States, but with their good-will and sympathy. He very soon gained from leading officers assurances of such a movement before 1848. At the same time American naval officers were instructed to occupy the ports in case of war with Mexico, but first and last to work for the good-will of the natives. In 1845 Captain J.C. Frémont,—whose doings in California in the next two years were among the main assets in a life-long reputation and an unsuccessful presidential campaign,—while engaged in a government surveying expedition, aroused the apprehensions of the Californian authorities by suspicious and very possibly intentionally provocative movements, and there was a show of military force by both parties. Frémont had information beyond that of ordinary men that made him believe early hostilities between the United States and Mexico to be inevitable; he was also officially informed of Larkin’s secret task and in no way authorized to hamper it. Resentment, however, incited him to personal revenge on the Californian government, and an ambition that clearly saw the gravity of the crisis prompted him to improve itThe “Bear Flag.”unscrupulously for his own advancement, leaving his government to support or disavow him according as war should come or not. In violation therefore of international amities, and practically in disobedience of orders, he broke the peace, caused a band of Mexican cavalry mounts to be seized, and prompted some American settlers to occupy Sonoma (14th June 1846). This episode is known as the “Bear Flag War,” inasmuch as there was short-lived talk of making California an independent state, and a flag with a bear as an emblem (California is still popularly known as the Bear Flag State) flew for a few days at Sonoma. It was a very small, very disingenuous, inevitably an anomalous, and in the vanity of proclamations and other concomitant incidents rather a ridiculous affair; and fortunately for the dignity of history—and for Frémont—it was quickly merged in a larger question, when Commodore John Drake Sloat (1780-1867) on the 7th of July raised the flag of the United States over Monterey, proclaiming California a part of the United States. The opening hostilities of the Mexican War had occurred on the Rio Grande. The excuses and explanations later given by Frémont—military preparations by the Californian authorities, the imminence of their attack, ripening British schemes for the seizure of the province, etc.—made up the stock account of historians until the whole truth came out in 1886 (in Royce’sCalifornia). Californians had been very friendly to Americans, but Larkin’s intimates thought they had been tricked, and the people resented the stealthy and unprovoked breaking of peace, and unfortunately the Americans did not known how to treat them except inconsiderately and somewhat contemptuously. The result was a feeble rising in the south. The country was fully pacified by January 1847. The aftermath of Frémont’s filibustering acts, followed as they wereby wholly needless hostilities and by some injustice then and later in the attitude of Americans toward the natives, was a growing misunderstanding and estrangement, regrettable in Californian history. Thus there was an end to the “lotos-land society” of California. Another society, less hospitable, less happy, less contented, but also less mild, better tempered for building states, and more “progressive,” took the place of the old.
By the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 Mexico ceded California to the United States. It was just at this time that gold was discovered, and the new territory took on great national importance. The discussion as to whatCalifornia ceded to the United States.should be done with it began in Congress in 1846, immediately involving the question of slavery. A furious conflict developed, so that nothing was accomplished in two successive sessions; even at the end of a third, in March 1849, the only progress made toward creating a government for the territory was that the national revenue laws had been extended over it and San Francisco had been made a port of entry. Meanwhile conditions grew intolerable for the inhabitants. Before the end of the war Mexican laws not incompatible with United States laws were by international law supposed to be in force; but nobody knew what they were, and the uncertainties of vague and variable alcalde jurisdictions were increased when Americans began to be alcaldes and grafted English common-law principles, like the jury, on Californian practice. Never was a population more in need of clear laws than the motley Californian people of 1848-1849, yet they had none when, with peace, military rule and Mexican law technically ended. There was a curious extra-legal fusion of laws, a half-breed legal system, and no definite basis for either law or government. Even the acts and theories of the officials were very inconsistent. Early in 1849 temporary local governments were set up in various towns, and in September a convention framed a free-state constitution and applied for admission to the Union. On the 7th of September 1850 a bill finally passed Congress admitting California as a free state. This was one of the bargains in the “Compromise Measures of 1850” that were intended to dispose of the question of slavery in the Territories. Meanwhile the gold discoveries culminated and surpassed “three centuries of wild talk about gold in California.” For three months there was little excitement, then a wild rush. Settlements were completely deserted; homes, farms and stores abandoned. Ships deserted by their sailors crowded the bay at San Francisco—there were 500 of them in July 1850; soldiers deserted wholesale, churches were emptied, town councils ceased to sit, merchants, clerks, lawyers and judges and criminals, everybody, flocked to the foothills. Soon, from Hawaii, Oregon and Sonora, from the Eastern states, the South Seas, Australia, South AmericaThe rush for gold.and China came an extraordinary flow of the hopeful and adventurous. In the winter of ’48 the rush began from the states to Panama, and in the spring across the plains. It is estimated that 80,000 men reached the coast in 1849, about half of them coming overland; three-fourths were Americans. Rapid settlement, excessive prices, reckless waste of money, and wild commercial ventures that glutted San Francisco with all objects usable and unusable made the following years astounding from an economic point of view; but not less bizarre was the social development, nor less extraordinary the problems of state-building in a society “morally and socially tried as no other American community ever has been tried” (Royce). There was of course no home life in early California. In 1850 women numbered 8% of the population, but only 2% in the mining counties. The miners were an energetic, covetous, wandering, abnormally excitable body of men. Occasionally a kind of frenzy even would seem to seize on them, and lured by the hope of new deposits of unheard-of richness thousands would flock on unfounded rumours to new and perhaps distant localities, where many might perish from disease and starvation, the rest returning in poverty and rags. Such were the Kern River fever of 1855 and the greater “Fraser River rush” of 1858, the latter, which took perhaps 20,000 men out of the state, causing a terrible amount of suffering. Many interior towns lost half their population and some virtually all their population as a result of this emigration; and it precipitated a real estate crash in San Francisco that threatened temporary ruin. Mining times in California brought out some of the most ignoble and some of the best traits of American character. Professor Josiah Royce has pictured the social-moral process by which society finally impressed its “claims on wayward and blind individuals” who “sought wealth and not a social order,” and so long as possible shirked all social obligations. Through varied instruments—lynch law, popular courts, vigilance committees—order was, however, enforced, better as times went on, until there was a stable condition of things. In the economic life and social character of California to-day the legacies of 1848 are plain.
The slavery question was not settled for California in 1850. Until the Civil War the division between the Whig and Democratic parties, whose organization in California preceded statehood, was essentially based on slavery. The struggle fused with the personal contests of two men, rivals for the United States Senate, William McKendree Gwin (1805-85, U.S. senator, 1850-55 and 1857-61), the leader of the pro-slavery party, and David Colbreth Broderick (1819-1859), formerly a leader of Tammany in New York, and after 1857 a member from California of the United States Senate, the champion of free labour, who declared in 1860 for the policy of the Republican party. Broderick’s undoing was resolved upon by the slavery party, and he was killed in a duel. The Gwin party hoped to divide California into two states and hand the southern over to slavery; on the eve of the Civil War it considered the scheme of a Pacific coast republic. The decade 1850-1860 was also marked by the activity of filibusters against Sonora and Central America. Two of these—a French adventurer, one Gaston Raoux, comte de Raousset-Boulbon (1817-1854), and William Walker, had very picturesque careers. The state was thoroughly loyal when war came. The later ’fifties are characterized by H.H. Bancroft as a period of “moral, political and financial night.” National politics were put first, to the complete ignoring of excessive taxation, financial extravagance, ignorant legislation and corruption in California. The public was exploited for many years with impunity for the benefit of private interests. OneDisputed land grants.legacy that ought to be briefly noted here is that of disputed land grants. Under the Mexican régime such grants were generous and common, and the complicated formalities theoretically essential to their validity were very often, if not usually, only in part attended to. Titles thus gained would never have been questioned under continued Mexican government, but Americans were unaccustomed to such riches in land and to such laxity. From the very first hundreds “squatted” on large claims, contesting the title. Instead of confirming all claims existing when the country passed to the United States, and so ensuring an immediate settlement of the matter, which was really the most important thing for the peace and purse of the community, the United States government undertook through a land commission and courts to sift the valid from the fraudulent. Claims of enormous aggregate value were thus considered and a large part of those dating from the last years of Mexican dominion (many probably artfully concocted and fraudulently antedated after the commission was at work) were finally rejected. This litigation filled the state and federal courts for many years. The high value of realty in San Francisco naturally offered extraordinary inducements to fraud, and the largest part of the city was for years involved in fraudulent claims, and its peace broken by “squatter”-troubles. Twenty or thirty years of the state’s life were disturbed by these controversies. Land monopoly is an evil of large proportions in California to-day, but it is due to the laxness of the United States government in enabling speculators to accumulate holdings and not to the original extent of Mexican grants.
In state gubernatorial elections after the Civil War the Democrats won in 1867, 1875, 1882, 1886, 1894; the Republicans in 1871, 1879, 1890, 1898, 1902, 1906, 1910. Features of political life and of legislation after 1876 were a strong labour agitation,the struggle for the exclusion of the Chinese, for the control of hydraulic mining, irrigation, and the advancement by state-aid of the fruit interests; the last three of which have already been referred to above. Labour conditions were peculiar in the decade following 1870. Mining, war times and the building of the Central Pacific had up to then inflated prices and prosperity. Then there came a slump; probably the truth was rather that money was becoming less unnaturally abundant than that there was any over-supply of labour. The turning off of some 15,000 Chinese (principally in 1869-1870) from the Central Pacific lines who flocked to San Francisco, augmented the discontent of incompetents, of disappointed late immigrants, and the reaction from flush times. Labour unions became strong and demonstrative. In 1877-1878 Denis Kearney (1847-1907), an Irish drayman and demagogue of considerable force and daring, headed the discontented. This is called the “sand-lots agitation” from the favourite meeting-place (in San Francisco) of the agitators.
The outcome of these years was the Constitution of 1879, already described, and the exclusion of Chinese by national law. In 1879 California voted against further immigration of Chinese by 154,638 to 883. Congress re-enacted exclusion legislation in 1902. All authorities agree that the Chinese in early years were often abused in the mining country and their rights most unjustly neglected by the law and its officers. Men among the most respected in California (Joaquin Miller, H.H. Bancroft and others) have said most in praise and defence of the Chinaman. From railroad making to cooking he has proved his abilities and trustworthiness. He is found to-day in the mines and fisheries, in various lines of manufacture, in small farming, and in all branches of domestic service. The question of the economic development of the state, and of trade to the Orient, the views of the mercenary labour-contractor and of the philanthropist, the factor of “upper-race” repugnance, the “economic-leech” argument, the “rat-rice-filth-and-opium” argument, have all entered into the problem. Certain it is that though the unprejudiced must admit that exclusion has not been at all an unmixed blessing, yet the consensus of opinion is that a large population, non-citizen and non-assimilable, sending—it is said—most of their earnings to China, living in the main meanly at best, and practically without wives, children or homes, is socially and economically a menace outweighing the undoubted convenience of cheaper (and frequently more trustworthy) menial labour than the other population affords. The exclusion had much to do with making the huge single crop ranches unprofitable and in leading to their replacement by small farms and varied crops. Many of the Chinese now in the state are wealthy. Race feeling against them has become much less marked.
One outcome of early mission history, the “Pious Fund of the Californias,” claimed in 1902 the attention of the Hague Tribunal. (SeeArbitration,International, Hague cases section.) In 1906-1907 there was throughout the state a remarkable anti-Japanese agitation, centring in San Francisco (q.v.) and affecting international relations and national politics.
Governors of California(State)6I. SpanishGasper de Portoláserved 1767-1770Filipe de Barri” 1771-1774Felipe de Neve” 1774-1782Pedro Pages” 1782-1791Jose Antonio Romeu” 1791-1792*José Joaquin de Arillaga” 1792-1794Diego de Borica” 1794-1800*José Joaquin de Arillaga” 1800-1804José Joaquin de Arillaga” 1804-1814*José Diario Arguello” 1814-1815Pablo Vicente de Sola” 1815-1822II. MexicanPablo Vicente de Solaserved 1822*Luis Antonio Arguello” 1822-1825José Maria Echeandía” 1825-1831Manuel Victoria” 1831José Maria Echeandía7” 1831-1832Pio Pico8” 1832José Figueroa” 1832-1835*José Castro” 1835-1836*Nicolas Gutierrez” 1836Mariano Chico” 1836Nicolas Gutierrez” 1836Juan Bautista Alvarado9” 1836-1842Carlos Antonio Carrillo10” 1837-1838Manuel Micheltorena” 1842-1845Pio Pico” 1845-1846III American(a)MilitaryJohn D. Sloatappointed 1846Richard F. Stockton” 1846-1847Stephen W. Kearny” 1847R.B. Mason” 1847-1849Bennett Riley” 1849(b)State.Peter H. Burnett1849-1851Democrat*John H. McDougall1851-1852”John Bigler1852-1856”John M. Johnson1856-1858Know NothingJohn B. Weller1858-1860Lecompton DemocratMilton S. Latham1869 (6 days)” ”*John G. Downey1860-1862” ”Leland Stanford1862-1863RepublicanFrederick F. Low1863-1867”Henry H. Haight1867-1871DemocratNewton Booth1871-1875Republican*Romualdo Pacheco1875”William Irwin1875-1880DemocratGeorge G. Perkins1880-1883RepublicanGeorge C. Stoneman1883-1887DemocratWashington Bartlett1887”*Robert W. Waterman1887-1891RepublicanHenry H. Markham1891-1895”James H. Budd1895-1899DemocratHenry T. Gage1899-1903RepublicanGeorge C. Pardee1903-1907”James N. Gillett1907-1911”Hiram W. Johnson1911-”The mark * before the name of one of the Spanish governors indicates that he acted onlyad interim, and, in the case of governors since 1849, that the officer named was elected as lieutenant-governor and succeeded to the office of governor.Bibliography.—For list of works on California, see University of CaliforniaLibrary Bulletin, No. 9, 1887, “List of Printed Maps of California”; catalogue of state official publications by State Library (Sacramento, 1894). The following may be cited here on different aspects:—Topography.—J. Muir,Mountains of California(New York, 1894); H. Gannett, “Dictionary of Elevations” (1898), and “River Profiles,” publications ofUnited States Geological Survey; G.W. James,The Wonders of the Colorado Desert(2 vols., Boston, 1906).Climate, &c.—U.S. Department of Agriculture, California Climate and Crop Service, monthly reports; E.S. Holden,Recorded, Earthquakes in California, Lower California, Oregon, and Washington Territory(California State University, 1887);United States Department Agriculture, Weather Bureau, Bulletins,Alexander G. McAdie, “Climatology of California” (Washington, 1903). There is a great mass of general descriptive literature, especially on Southern California, such as Charles Dudley Warner,Our Italy(New York, 1891); Kate Sanborn,A Truthful Woman in Southern California(New York, 1893); W. Lindley and J.P. Widney,California of the South(New York, 1896); J.W. Hanson,American Italy(Chicago, 1896); T.S. Van Dyke,Southern California(New York, 1886), &c.Fauna, Flora.—Muir,op. cit.;United States Geological Survey, 19th Annual Report, pt. v., H. Gannett, “Forests of the United States”; idem,20th Annual Report,pt. v., “United States Forest Reserves”;United States Division of Forestry, BulletinNo. 28, “A Short Account of the Big Trees of California” (1900), No. 38, “The Redwood” (a volume, 1903), alsoProfessional Papers, e.g.No. 8, J.B. Leiberg, “Forest Conditions in the Northern Sierra Nevada” (1902);California Board of Forestry, Reports(1885- );United States Censuses,reports on forests;United States Biological Survey, North American Fauna,No. 16, 1899, C.H. Merriam, “Biological Survey of Mt. Shasta”;United States Department Agriculture, Contributions from United States National Herbarium,iv., 1893, F.V. Coville, “Botany of Death Valley Expedition”;State Board of Fish Commissioners, Reports,from 1877;United States Fish Commissioners, Annual Reports,from 1871, andBulletinsfrom 1882; J. le Conte, “Flora of the Coast Islands” (1887), beingBulletinNo. 8 of California Academy of Sciences; consult also itsProceedings,Memoirs, andOccasional Papers;G.J. Peirce,Studies on the Coast Redwood(publication of Leland Stanford jr. University, 1901).Agriculture.—California Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletinsfrom 1884;Reports of the State Dairy Bureau,from 1898;State Board of Horticulture, Reports,1889-1894;United States Censuses,1890 and 1900, reports on irrigation.Industries.—J.S. Hittell,Resources of California(7th ed., San Francisco, 1879); J.S. Hittell,Commerce and Industries of the Pacific Coast(San Francisco, 1882); T.F. Cronise,Natural Wealth of California(San Francisco, 1868); E.W. Maslin,Resources of California,prepared by order of Governor H.H. Markham (Sacramento, 1893);United States Treasury, Bureau of Statistics,report by T.J. Vivian on “Commercial, Industrial, Agricultural, Transportation and Other Industries of California” (Washington 1890, valuable for whole period before 1890);United States Censuses,1890 and 1900, reports on agriculture, manufactures, mines and fisheries;California State Board of Trade(San Francisco),Annual Reportfrom 1890. On Mineral Industries:—J.R. Browne, Report on “Mineral Resources of the States and Territories west of the Rocky Mountains” (United States Treasury,2 vols., Washington, 1867-1868);United States Geological Survey, Annual Reports, Mineral Resources;consult also the bibliographies of publications of theSurvey, issued asBulletins; California State Mining Bureau, Bulletinsfrom 1888, note especially No. 30, 1904, by A.W. Vodges, “Bibliography relating to the Geology, Palaeontology and Mineral Resources of California” (2nd ed., the 1st beingBulletinNo. 10, 1896);California Débris Commission,Reports(inAnnual Reports Chief of Engineers, United States Army,from 1893).Government.—E.F. Treadwell,The Constitution of the State of California ... Annotated(San Francisco, 1902);Johns Hopkins University, Studies in History and Political Science,xiii., R.D. Hunt, “Genesis of California’s First Constitution”;Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,xii., R.D. Hunt, “Legal Status of California, 1846-1849”; Reports of the various officers, departments and administrative boards of the state government (Sacramento), and also theAppendix to the Journals of the Senate and Assembly,which contains, especially in the earlier decades of the state’s history, many of these state official reports along with valuable legislative reports of varied character.History.—Accounts of the valuable archives in Bancroft, and by Z.E. Eldridge inCalifornia Genealogical Society(1901); elaborate bibliographies in Bancroft with analyses and appreciations of many works. Of general scope and fundamental importance is the work of two men, Hubert H. Bancroft and Theodore H. Hittell. The former has published aHistory of California, 1542-1890(7 vols., San Francisco, 1884-1890), alsoCalifornia Pastoral, 1769-1848(San Francisco, 1888),California Inter-Pocula, 1848-1856(San Francisco, 1888), andPopular Tribunals(2 vols., San Francisco, 1887). These volumes were largely written under Mr. Bancroft’s direction and control by an office staff, and are of very unequal value; they are a vast storehouse of detailed material which is of great usefulness, although their judgments of men are often inadequate and prejudiced. As regards events the histories are of substantial accuracy and adequacy. Written by one hand and more uniform in treatment and good judgment, is T.H. Hittell’sHistory of California(4 vols., San Francisco, 1885-1897). The older historian of the state was Francisco Palou, a Franciscan, the friend and biographer of Serra; his “Noticias de la Nueva California” (Mexico, 1857, in theDoc. Hist. Mex.,ser. iv., tom, vi.-viii.; also San Francisco, 1874, 4 vols.) is no longer of importance save for its historical interest. Of the contemporary material on the period of Mexican domination the best is afforded by R.H. Dana’sTwo Years Before the Mast(New York, 1840, many later and foreign editions); also A. Robinson,Life in California(New York, 1846); and Alexander Forbes,California: A History of Upper and Lower California from their First Discovery to the Present Time(London, 1839); see also F.W. Blackmar, “Spanish Institutions of the Southwest” (Johns Hopkins University Studies,1891). A beautiful, vivid and reputedly very accurate picture of the old society is given in Helen Hunt Jackson’s novel,Ramona(New York, 1884). There is no really scientific separate account of mission history; there are books by Father Z. Engelhart,The Franciscans in California(Harbor Springs, Michigan, 1899), written entirely from a Franciscan standpoint; C.F. Carter,Missions of Nueva California(San Francisco, 1900); Bryan J. Clinch,California and its Missions: Their History to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo(2 vols., San Francisco, 1904); Francisco Palou,Relacion Historica de la Vida ... del Fray Junipero Serra(Mexico, 1787), the standard contemporary source; theCraftsman(Syracuse, N.Y., vol. v.), a series of articles on “Mission Buildings,” by G.W. James. On the case of the Pious Fund of the missions see J.F. Doyle,History of the Pious Fund(San Francisco, 1887);United States Department of State,“United Statesv.Mexico. Report of J.H. Ralston, agent of the United States and of counsel in the matter of the Pious Fund of the Californias” (Washington, 1902). On the “flush” mining years the best books of the time are J.Q. Thornton’sOregon and California(2 vols., New York, 1849); Edward Bryant’sWhat I Saw in California(New York, 1848); W. Shaw’sGolden Dreams(London, 1851); Bayard Taylor’sEldorado(2 vols., New York, 1850); W. Colton’sThree Years in California(New York, 1850); E.G. Buffum’sSix Months in the Gold Mines; from a Journal of Three Years’ Residence in Upper and Lower California(London, 1850); J.T. Brooks’Four Months among the Gold Finders(London, 1849); G.G. Foster,Gold Regions of California(New York, 1884). On this same period consult Bancroft’sPopular Tribunals; D.Y. Thomas, “A History of Military Government in Newly Acquired Territory of the United States,” in vol. xx. No. 2 (New York, 1904) ofColumbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law; C.H. Shinn’sMining Camps: A Study in American Frontier Government(New York, 1885); J. Royce,California ... A Study of American Character, 1846-1856(Boston, 1886); and, for varied pictures of mining and frontier life, the novels and sketches and poems of Bret Harte. See also P.H. Burnet,Recollections and Opinions of an Old Pioneer(New York, 1880); S.J. Field,Personal Reminiscences of Early Days in California(privately published, copyright 1893).
Governors of California(State)6
The mark * before the name of one of the Spanish governors indicates that he acted onlyad interim, and, in the case of governors since 1849, that the officer named was elected as lieutenant-governor and succeeded to the office of governor.
Bibliography.—For list of works on California, see University of CaliforniaLibrary Bulletin, No. 9, 1887, “List of Printed Maps of California”; catalogue of state official publications by State Library (Sacramento, 1894). The following may be cited here on different aspects:—
Topography.—J. Muir,Mountains of California(New York, 1894); H. Gannett, “Dictionary of Elevations” (1898), and “River Profiles,” publications ofUnited States Geological Survey; G.W. James,The Wonders of the Colorado Desert(2 vols., Boston, 1906).
Climate, &c.—U.S. Department of Agriculture, California Climate and Crop Service, monthly reports; E.S. Holden,Recorded, Earthquakes in California, Lower California, Oregon, and Washington Territory(California State University, 1887);United States Department Agriculture, Weather Bureau, Bulletins,Alexander G. McAdie, “Climatology of California” (Washington, 1903). There is a great mass of general descriptive literature, especially on Southern California, such as Charles Dudley Warner,Our Italy(New York, 1891); Kate Sanborn,A Truthful Woman in Southern California(New York, 1893); W. Lindley and J.P. Widney,California of the South(New York, 1896); J.W. Hanson,American Italy(Chicago, 1896); T.S. Van Dyke,Southern California(New York, 1886), &c.
Fauna, Flora.—Muir,op. cit.;United States Geological Survey, 19th Annual Report, pt. v., H. Gannett, “Forests of the United States”; idem,20th Annual Report,pt. v., “United States Forest Reserves”;United States Division of Forestry, BulletinNo. 28, “A Short Account of the Big Trees of California” (1900), No. 38, “The Redwood” (a volume, 1903), alsoProfessional Papers, e.g.No. 8, J.B. Leiberg, “Forest Conditions in the Northern Sierra Nevada” (1902);California Board of Forestry, Reports(1885- );United States Censuses,reports on forests;United States Biological Survey, North American Fauna,No. 16, 1899, C.H. Merriam, “Biological Survey of Mt. Shasta”;United States Department Agriculture, Contributions from United States National Herbarium,iv., 1893, F.V. Coville, “Botany of Death Valley Expedition”;State Board of Fish Commissioners, Reports,from 1877;United States Fish Commissioners, Annual Reports,from 1871, andBulletinsfrom 1882; J. le Conte, “Flora of the Coast Islands” (1887), beingBulletinNo. 8 of California Academy of Sciences; consult also itsProceedings,Memoirs, andOccasional Papers;G.J. Peirce,Studies on the Coast Redwood(publication of Leland Stanford jr. University, 1901).
Agriculture.—California Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletinsfrom 1884;Reports of the State Dairy Bureau,from 1898;State Board of Horticulture, Reports,1889-1894;United States Censuses,1890 and 1900, reports on irrigation.
Industries.—J.S. Hittell,Resources of California(7th ed., San Francisco, 1879); J.S. Hittell,Commerce and Industries of the Pacific Coast(San Francisco, 1882); T.F. Cronise,Natural Wealth of California(San Francisco, 1868); E.W. Maslin,Resources of California,prepared by order of Governor H.H. Markham (Sacramento, 1893);United States Treasury, Bureau of Statistics,report by T.J. Vivian on “Commercial, Industrial, Agricultural, Transportation and Other Industries of California” (Washington 1890, valuable for whole period before 1890);United States Censuses,1890 and 1900, reports on agriculture, manufactures, mines and fisheries;California State Board of Trade(San Francisco),Annual Reportfrom 1890. On Mineral Industries:—J.R. Browne, Report on “Mineral Resources of the States and Territories west of the Rocky Mountains” (United States Treasury,2 vols., Washington, 1867-1868);United States Geological Survey, Annual Reports, Mineral Resources;consult also the bibliographies of publications of theSurvey, issued asBulletins; California State Mining Bureau, Bulletinsfrom 1888, note especially No. 30, 1904, by A.W. Vodges, “Bibliography relating to the Geology, Palaeontology and Mineral Resources of California” (2nd ed., the 1st beingBulletinNo. 10, 1896);California Débris Commission,Reports(inAnnual Reports Chief of Engineers, United States Army,from 1893).
Government.—E.F. Treadwell,The Constitution of the State of California ... Annotated(San Francisco, 1902);Johns Hopkins University, Studies in History and Political Science,xiii., R.D. Hunt, “Genesis of California’s First Constitution”;Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,xii., R.D. Hunt, “Legal Status of California, 1846-1849”; Reports of the various officers, departments and administrative boards of the state government (Sacramento), and also theAppendix to the Journals of the Senate and Assembly,which contains, especially in the earlier decades of the state’s history, many of these state official reports along with valuable legislative reports of varied character.
History.—Accounts of the valuable archives in Bancroft, and by Z.E. Eldridge inCalifornia Genealogical Society(1901); elaborate bibliographies in Bancroft with analyses and appreciations of many works. Of general scope and fundamental importance is the work of two men, Hubert H. Bancroft and Theodore H. Hittell. The former has published aHistory of California, 1542-1890(7 vols., San Francisco, 1884-1890), alsoCalifornia Pastoral, 1769-1848(San Francisco, 1888),California Inter-Pocula, 1848-1856(San Francisco, 1888), andPopular Tribunals(2 vols., San Francisco, 1887). These volumes were largely written under Mr. Bancroft’s direction and control by an office staff, and are of very unequal value; they are a vast storehouse of detailed material which is of great usefulness, although their judgments of men are often inadequate and prejudiced. As regards events the histories are of substantial accuracy and adequacy. Written by one hand and more uniform in treatment and good judgment, is T.H. Hittell’sHistory of California(4 vols., San Francisco, 1885-1897). The older historian of the state was Francisco Palou, a Franciscan, the friend and biographer of Serra; his “Noticias de la Nueva California” (Mexico, 1857, in theDoc. Hist. Mex.,ser. iv., tom, vi.-viii.; also San Francisco, 1874, 4 vols.) is no longer of importance save for its historical interest. Of the contemporary material on the period of Mexican domination the best is afforded by R.H. Dana’sTwo Years Before the Mast(New York, 1840, many later and foreign editions); also A. Robinson,Life in California(New York, 1846); and Alexander Forbes,California: A History of Upper and Lower California from their First Discovery to the Present Time(London, 1839); see also F.W. Blackmar, “Spanish Institutions of the Southwest” (Johns Hopkins University Studies,1891). A beautiful, vivid and reputedly very accurate picture of the old society is given in Helen Hunt Jackson’s novel,Ramona(New York, 1884). There is no really scientific separate account of mission history; there are books by Father Z. Engelhart,The Franciscans in California(Harbor Springs, Michigan, 1899), written entirely from a Franciscan standpoint; C.F. Carter,Missions of Nueva California(San Francisco, 1900); Bryan J. Clinch,California and its Missions: Their History to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo(2 vols., San Francisco, 1904); Francisco Palou,Relacion Historica de la Vida ... del Fray Junipero Serra(Mexico, 1787), the standard contemporary source; theCraftsman(Syracuse, N.Y., vol. v.), a series of articles on “Mission Buildings,” by G.W. James. On the case of the Pious Fund of the missions see J.F. Doyle,History of the Pious Fund(San Francisco, 1887);United States Department of State,“United Statesv.Mexico. Report of J.H. Ralston, agent of the United States and of counsel in the matter of the Pious Fund of the Californias” (Washington, 1902). On the “flush” mining years the best books of the time are J.Q. Thornton’sOregon and California(2 vols., New York, 1849); Edward Bryant’sWhat I Saw in California(New York, 1848); W. Shaw’sGolden Dreams(London, 1851); Bayard Taylor’sEldorado(2 vols., New York, 1850); W. Colton’sThree Years in California(New York, 1850); E.G. Buffum’sSix Months in the Gold Mines; from a Journal of Three Years’ Residence in Upper and Lower California(London, 1850); J.T. Brooks’Four Months among the Gold Finders(London, 1849); G.G. Foster,Gold Regions of California(New York, 1884). On this same period consult Bancroft’sPopular Tribunals; D.Y. Thomas, “A History of Military Government in Newly Acquired Territory of the United States,” in vol. xx. No. 2 (New York, 1904) ofColumbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law; C.H. Shinn’sMining Camps: A Study in American Frontier Government(New York, 1885); J. Royce,California ... A Study of American Character, 1846-1856(Boston, 1886); and, for varied pictures of mining and frontier life, the novels and sketches and poems of Bret Harte. See also P.H. Burnet,Recollections and Opinions of an Old Pioneer(New York, 1880); S.J. Field,Personal Reminiscences of Early Days in California(privately published, copyright 1893).