Merced County CA Archives History - Books .....Merced Becomes The County Seat 1925 ************************************************ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/copyright.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/ca/cafiles.htm ************************************************ File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: Joy Fisher sdgenweb@yahoo.com February 1, 2006, 3:46 pm Book Title: History Of Merced County California CHAPTER XV MERCED BECOMES THE COUNTY SEAT Along in the fall of 1872, we begin to read in the two papers of a movement to transfer the county seat from Snelling to the new town of Merced. For some reason or other both papers, Steele's San Joaquin Valley Argus, published at Snelling, and Edward Mad-den's Merced County Tribune, published at Merced, seem to shy at the subject; there is by no means as much in their columns about the beginning of the movement, or anything that preceded the actual calling of the election, as we should expect. The Argus first mentions it in the issue of September 28, 1872, as follows: "The County Seat Question.—Our Merced friends seem exceedingly anxious for the removal of the county seat from Snelling to the new town, many of them believing that this new acquisition is absolutely essential to the future prosperity of their promising place. We believe that they are entirely too anxious and will in their zeal overdo the thing, and thereby injure the prospects not only of Merced but also of Snelling, as well as the taxpayers of the entire county. To get the seat of justice removed to a central point in the county has long been the desire of a large proportion of the residents of the county; but all should desire to effect it at the least possible cost to the taxpayers; and to do this, care should be taken to have all things in readiness before an attempt is made and a vote of the people taken. We should look to the cost of suitable county buildings and the means of providing funds to pay for the same, before the people are called upon to cast their votes upon the question." It is not strictly true that this is Steele's first reference to the possibility of Merced's becoming the county seat; he has a short reference to it in March, and he mentions it as a possibility once or twice in telling about the beginning of the new town still earlier. But it is his first reference to a movement for the purpose on the part of Merced after the movement had been launched, and it reads as if it were a reluctant reference to something that had been going on for some time. The note of fatherly conservatism which he strikes in this first utterance he maintains throughout his discussion until the election has actually carried and the count been completed beyond any doubt. It is only on December 21, nine days after the election, that he writes, "The county seat goes from Snelling, and with the removal the glory of the place departs." In his issue of November 2, he says: "The county seat question, as the time approaches for the Board of Supervisors to act upon the petition for the issuance of a proclamation of eleceion, produces some little stir among our people, many of whom think that it is rather too soon to think of settling a question involving so much expense to the county as this, and prefer to wait until the taxpayers are more able to bear the burdens of taxation, necessary to defray the expenses of erecting permanent public building, should the people vote for removal. We say, the people pay their money and should have their choice." In the same issue is the following: "The Board of Supervisors. —This body will meet on Monday next for the transaction of the regular business of the term, and will in all probability remain in session two weeks, as there is a large amount of business to transact, much of which will require considerable time for deliberation." On November 9 he has another editorial beginning: "It will be seen by notice in another column that the Board of Supervisors on the 7th inst, ordered an election to be holden on the 12th of December for the relocation of the county seat of this county. . . ." He goes on with another of his editorials, much in the same vein as the one already quoted. The notice itself is very brief and is as follows: "Election Notice.—Notice is hereby given that a special election will be held in all the election precincts of Merced County on Thursday, December 12th, A. D. 1872, for the purpose of voting upon the removal and location of the county-seat of said Merced County. "By order of the Board of Supervisors, "James E. Hicks, Clerk. "Snelling, Nov. 7, 1872." The order made by the board on November 7, calling the election and naming election officers, was as follows: "Special Election Order.—The petition of citizens praying the Board to call an election for the purpose of voting upon the removal of the county seat of this county having been filed, the Board proceeded to count the names of petitioners, and having found that said petition contained the names of registered electors equal in number to at least one-third of the votes cast at the last general election, made the following order calling an election: It is hereby ordered that a special election will be held in all the election precincts in Merced County on Thursday, December 12th, 1872, for the purpose of voting upon the removal and location of the county seat of said Merced County. "The following is a list of the officers of election: "Snelling Precinct—N. Breen, Inspector; J. B. Sensabaugh, G. W. Halstead, Judges. "Merced Falls Precinct—Wm. A. McCreary, Inspector; Henry Nelson, T. W. Standart, Judges. "Hopeton Precinct—Mark Wyatt, Inspector; H. F. Buckley, W. L. Silman, Judges. "Madison Precinct—Henry Smart, Inspector; A. McSwain, P. M. Price, Judges. "Turner's Precinct—W. C. Turner, Inspector; R. J. Ashe, Samuel Long, Judges. "Merced Precinct—Richard Simpson, Inspector; W. B. Aiken, John Levinsky, Judges. "Hail's Precinct—J. C. Hail, Inspector; Jas. Cunningham, N. F. Salter, Judges. "Plainsburg Precinct—P. Y. Welch, Inspector; Reub. Reynolds, Byron Burrington, Judges. "Sandy Mush Precinct—Jas. Mull, Sr., Inspector; A. L. Relyea, A. D. Turner, Judges. "Mears' Precinct—J. K. Mears, Inspector; C. E. Stevens, John Keys, Judges. "Cressy Precinct—T. J. Simpson, Inspector; T. C. Shaw, W. P. McConnell, Judges. "Cottonwood Precinct—N. H. Spencer, Inspector; Bates Dehart, A. S. Garvin, Judges. "Kreyenhagen Precinct—Gus Kreyenhagen, Inspector; Saul J. Horner, Benj. F. Davis, Judges." It is in his issue of November 9, the first after the board of supervisors had called the election, that Madden first mentioned the subject. From that time on until the election, he boosted Merced. But we will return to Steele. On November 16 he has a long editorial on the subject, in which he argues against the move, at present, on the score of cost. He cites the horrible examples of old Tuolumne and Calaveras Counties, where, he tells us, the citizens are saddled with a heavy burden of debt on account of expensive county buildings. He urges that the people go slow—that they do not vote for the removal "in order that the railroad company and a few speculators at Merced may grow rich with greater rapidity." In this same issue there is a communication, signed, after the rather usual practice of the time, with a fictitious name. This time it is "An Old Resident" who takes a column to oppose the removal from Snelling. He advances three arguments: First, that it will be more costly than the county can afford; second, that the county around Merced is subject to overflow, and that it will take $75,000 more (in addition to the $175,000 which he estimates for county buildings that the county can feel proud of) to levy it so that the citizens can always get to the county seat; and third, that Merced, while it is somewhere near the center of the East Side, is not enough more convenient to the West Side to justify their share of the expense of removal. "An Old Resident" is evidently also an old politician trying the old political trick of divide and conquer. Steele, in his editorial just mentioned, argues that the supervisors cannot, according to law, impose a tax for the necessary buildings. He counsels waiting until authority can be obtained from the legislature at its next session. He also argues that suitable buildings should be ready to move the county records to in order that there may not be danger of their loss by fire. The following week he has an editorial beginning: "This question now is the most important agitating the minds of the people of this county, and is really worthy of greater consideration than ordinarily is the case with like propositions in other counties. When we take into consideration the vast influence exerted by the Railroad Company over county officials, the interest taken by the managers of that corporation in removal to the town of Merced, together with the vast expenditures contemplated for the purpose of building roads to that point, the people may well fear the result. . . ." On the 30th of November he has an "Address to the Voters and Tax-Payers of Merced County" on the subject which occupies almost three columns, in which he sums up all the arguments he can think of against the removal, and he has also an editorial as follows: "County Seat Removal.—Our citizens having laid aside their apathy, show a disposition to contest the claims of the town of Merced for the seat of justice, and are now making efforts to place the question squarely before the people in every section of the county, relying upon the justice of their cause, and the well-known intelligence of the people for a verdict in favor of retaining it where it is now located until proper preparations are made by law for removal and relocation. And, being thoroughly impressed with the belief that all prudent taxpayers in all quarters of the county will vote against removal on the 12th day of next month, feel sanguine of victory and the retention of the county seat at Snelling for at least two years longer. Men of calculation and prudence who are not personally interested in either place will doubtless oppose removal at this time, in consequence of the probability of a great increase of taxation. The issue must be met by all such now, that the county may be saved from expenditures so enormous that her growth and prosperity will be crippled for a long term of years. With her area of unrivaled soil, Merced County ought to take the lead of her neighbors in the production of the cereals, cotton, fruits and all the products adapted to our climate, and will do so if taxation is not so increased as to discourage immigration, and the investment of capital in the cultivation of our fertile lands. Let the people carefully examine into these things, and then attend the polls and vote against removal, and the incurring of debts to the amount of one or two hundred thousand dollars, by hurrying removal a year or two in advance of the proper time." In his issue of December 7, the last before the election, Steele delivers "The Last Shot," and also prints a communication against the removal, signed "Sorites." In this last editorial he attacks editorials which had appeared in the Tribune. Madden had told of an offer taking the form of a bond filed with the county clerk, on the part of a group of citizens, to provide temporary buildings in Merced rent-free if the county seat should be removed there, and also of the filing by the railroad company of a bond for a deed to a site, and had also warmly criticized "one Little" for circulating cards offering to deed a lot in "Livingstone" for a dollar to each person who would vote in favor of Snelling or against Merced. "Sorites," in the Argus of December 9, charges that the railroad company is trying to enslave the people, and wants the county seat removed to their railroad line for that nefarious purpose. He says in part: "Vote to move the county seat to the town of Merced and we deliver ourselves bound hand and foot to this heartless, soulless, arbitrary, and tyrannical corporation. We say tyrannical, because every day's experience proves them to be so. But a few days back, when they were informed that Cressy's Station, or Livingstone, as it is now called, would be run for the county seat, they told Mr. Little, who owns the lands about the station, that if he permitte dthat place to be run, they would tear up the switch and move the station. Fellow citizens, does this not have the ring about it of telling you that you shall put the county seat where they dictate?" "Sorites" then makes another point: "Aside from these momentous considerations, let us examine the location itself of the town of Merced and its claims to the site. Go to the county map and you will see it is about ten miles to the eastern boundary of the county, whilst it is fifty to the western boundary . . . and this, when stripped of all the blowing and tooting you have heard about it, constitutes its claims to a central location. The town itself is situated on a bleak, cheerless plain, without a tree to relieve its monotony unless it be an occasional stunted willow on Bear Creek, and from this fact it follows that its inhabitants have to come to the Merced River or go east some fifteen or twenty miles into the mountains to obtain wood, and for which they have to pay at the present time ten to fifteen dollars per cord, delivered in Merced City." And then he makes another point: "It is built upon the lowest ground in the neighborhood, being in a swag; and I ask those who repair there next Thursday for the purpose of voting, to note the fact that it is not susceptible of drainage. . . ." And so on. From the style of this letter of "Sorites" and that of the other by "An Old Resident," and that of the unsigned "Address," all of which pretty closely resemble Steele's editorial style, it is a fair enough suspicion that he himself wrote them all. The editorial "we" crops up now and then in them. If he wrote the very passimistic estimate of Merced's location in the "Sorites" letter, if affords a very interesting contrast to the extremely complimentary things he said about the place a year or so earlier, and the town's desire to be the county seat had apparently had a lot of effect on its beauty. In the same issue he says: "The lackeys of the Railroad Company are using golden arguments in favor of removal. . . . People may know the most prominent ones who have sold themselves. . . . Gold and Merced town lots are at the bottom of their disinterestedness. . . ." This was Steele's last utterance before the election. Madden, as has been said, does not apparently comment upon the removal proposition at all until after the board of supervisors had actually called the election. The election notice was published in both papers and has been given above. Madden's editorial of the 9th is brief. It reads: "County Seat.—As will be seen from the Election Proclamation published elsewhere in this issue, the Board of Supervisors, in accordance with a petition signed by the requisite number of electors, have ordered a special election to be held on the 12th proximo, to determine the question of locating the county seat of this county. The subject is of great interest to the community and will no doubt be thoroughly canvassed. The late hour at which we received the order of the board forbids any extended remarks in this connection, this week." He makes more extended remarks the next week, argues that if the county seat is to be removed it should go to Merced, that it would be a great convenience to those wishing to buy land to have the county records at Merced, says that the prosperity of both towns will suffer as long as the matter remains undecided, argues that outside of the cost of the new buildings the actual removal will not cost five hundred dollars, and that the cost of the buildings should not all be charged to the removal, as the present buildings are "somewhat faded and thoroughly inadequate," tells of the nine-acre site which has been donated, says that the burden can't be imposed until the legislature meets in the winter of 1873-1874, and argues that since the law provides there cannot be another election on the question for three years, it should be carried this time. The cost, he argues, will not be a burden that cannot well be borne. On November 23 the Tribune has a story that a group of men favoring Merced have filed with the county clerk a bond to provide free to the county good and sufficient buildings as temporary quarters if the county seat comes to Merced. The buildings are to be furnished for not to exceed eighteen months from the first day of January, 1873, The men who executed the bond were: "M. Smythe, J. P.; Patrick Carroll, Farmer; M. Dugan, Farmer; John Mitchell, Farmer; Nor-vall Douglass, Farmer; Jas. Morton, Sheep-raiser; Henry Hoffman, Farmer; C. C. Smith, Sheep-raiser; Charles P. Elliott, Fruit Dealer; E. Shainfelt, Merchant; J. Kocher, Tinsmith; A. M. Hunter, Blacksmith; A. R. Cosaccia, Merchant; J. Levinsky, Merchant; Geo. W. Powell, Saloon Prop.; M. F. Moran, Hotel Keeper; P. Rohrbacher & Bro., Brewers; C. E. Evans, Hotel Keeper; H. McErlane, Saloon Prop.; S. Silver, Merchant; William Twomy, Liquor Dealer; M. Goldman, Merchant; J. J. Cook, Druggist; Sam Wyatt, Restaurant Prop.; Stoddard & Hubbard, Commissjon Merchants; McDonald & Co., Blacksmiths; Davis & Sons, Merchants; H. Baerwald, Tinsmith; J. R. McCready, Stable Prop.; M. M. McClenathan, Stable Prop.; M. O. Barber & Co., Stable Props.; G. W. Stoneroad, Rancher; H. A. Bloss, Hotel Proprietor." This bond Steele attacked in the Argus as not worth the paper it was written on, and an attempt to bribe voters. He found another attempt to bribe in the donation of a site, but this was after Madden had discovered the first attempt to bribe, which he discloses in the issue of December 7 thus: "Livingstone-Cressy.—We do not remember a more shameless attempt to trick voters and coerce weak and timorous men than the scheme engineered by the parties whose names appear in the following card, which is being circulated throughout the county: " 'Should the Board of Supervisors of Merced County declare the town of Livingstone county seat of Merced County, for the sum of one dollar my agent, J. B. Sensabaugh, is authorized to sell to the holder of this card a lot in the said town, twenty-five feet front by one hundred and twenty-five feet deep, choice to be determined by lot in common with all other lots sold at the same price, the purchaser to pay said agent for making deed, etc. (Signed) W. J. Little.' "This, we take it, is nothing more nor less than an attempt to buy voters. We do not know that this was intended by the authors of the scheme, but this is in effect its operation. It is precisely as if one should say, 'I will give you a building lot for one dollar if you will vote against Merced.' The common sense of our people will condemn this plan; for be it remembered that these cards, so far as we have observed, are not given to those who favor the claims of Merced. . . . To expose the animus . . . in order to carry the election, Merced must receive a majority of all votes cast, and consequently a vote cast for any place but Merced counts against us. This is well understood by those who have promised the voters of Cressy, Madison and Turner's precincts that the vote of Snelling, Hopeton and Merced Falls would be cast nearly solid for Cressy—a promise that will utterly fail of being redeemed, made with a full knowledge of its worthlessness, and now repudated by every fair-minded voter of Snelling who did not lend himself to the dirty trick. "It is as well-known in Snelling as it is here, that the contest is one simply whether the county seat shall remain where it is or be relocated, and the issue solely between Merced and Snelling, and any plan promising any considerable number of votes from the latter town in favor of Livingstone is a subterfuge of the meanest kind, and so shallow and petty a trick that its authors should be ashamed of resorting to it. "Do the business men of Plainsburg indorse it? And do they indorse similar promises made to the people of Plainsburg and Cottonwood? Can all these be the county seat? The answer is.obvious. The choice of Snelling is Snelling and no place else, and we do not believe that those interested in trade at that point will pretend to say that they will unite in good faith with a plan to deprive them of their trade, for this will infallibly be the effect of the removal of the county seat to any point. "Their only object manifestly is to retain their present advantage, and all appeals to the local prejudices of Plainsburg, Cottonwood, or Livingstone, with promise of votes, are a fraud, a delusion and a snare. "Let it be understood that the issue is a square one between Merced and Snelling, and we will abide the result, confident in the good judgement of a majority of our fellow citizens." How much foundation there may have been for this editorial we cannot of course tell now; presumably nobody could have told even then. Merced, as he says, or any other candidate, would have to have a majority of all the votes to replace Snelling. But Snelling could of course win by simply preventing any other town from getting a majority, even if she didn't get a vote herself. There was reason for such strategy; therefore, the good old rule would suffice her, the simple plan, that they should get who have the power and they should keep who can. The election was held on December 12, and on the 14th the Tribune reports the vote from ten of the thirteen precincts as follows: (the first figure being for Merced, the second for Snelling and the third for Livingstone): Merced Falls: 0—11—7; Snelling: 21—96—104; Hopeton: 4—17—19; Madison, no report; Turner: 10—9—20; Cressy: 21—1—21; Merced: 363—9—0; Hailes: 14—4—0; Plainsburg: 92—2—0; Sandy Mush: 22—0—0; Mears'; 12—3—0; Kreyenhagen and Cottonwood, no report. These ten precincts give Merced 559, Snelling 152, and Livingstone 171. Steele, who admits Merced's victory this week, gives the total vote the following week as: Merced 566; Livingstone 236; Snelling 181; a total of 983 for all. The Board ordered that on an after December 30, 1872, Merced be the county seat. In order to build the court house and jail, the board of supervisors had to be authorized by an act of the legislature to issue the necessary bonds. It was on December 22, 1873, that the legislature approved a law authorizing the board to issue not to exceed $75,000 in bonds bearing interest at 10 per cent per year and payable in twenty years. The act is printed in the Statutes of 1873-1874, at page 7 and following. On December 30 the board met in special session; on the 31st they ordered the clerk to give notice by publication in the Merced Tribune and the San Francisco Examiner that on February 9, 1874, they would receive plans and specifications for said building and that $500 would be awarded for the plan adopted by them. On February 9 they met pursuant to said notice. Eight sets of plans and specifications were submitted. The board adjourned over to February 13 to examine these and on that day selected and adopted the plan submitted by A. A. Bennett. On March 2 it was ordered that the clerk advertise for sealed proposals, to be opened April 2, "for the construction of a court house and jail in Merced." The notice was to be published in the Daily Examiner, the Daily Record, and the Weekly Merced Tribune. On April 1 the board sold forty court house bonds, $20,000, to Woods & Freeborn at $101.37^ per $100. On the 2nd of April they opened bids. There were six bids as follows: J. C. Weir & Co., $57,888; D. Jordan, $57,692; Jas. H. Sullivan, $58,540; Ellsworth & Washburn, $57,437.34; A. W. Bur-rell, $55,970; Child & Co., $65,000. The board accepted A. W. Burrell's bid, upon his giving bond for $30,000. On the next day A. A. Bennett, the architect, was appointed commissioner to furnish plans for and superintend the construction of the building; to receive five per cent on the whole cost of the building and his necessary traveling expenses. The Merced Tribune of July 11, 1874, gives us these facts: The cornerstone of the new court house was laid Wednesday, July 8, 1874, by the Most Worthy Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of California. The procession formed in front of the Masonic Hall at half past ten and "marched to the Court House park in the following order: Grand Marshal, A. J. Meany, Merced Brass Band, Irish-American Benevolent Society, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Free and Accepted Masons. Arriving at the park the exercises were opened with music by the band, followed by singing by a choir composed of Mrs. Dr. Washington, Mrs. Law, Mrs. Conley, Miss Hicks, Miss Tackett, and Messrs. Barrell, Howell and Geis." P. D. Wigginton delivered a short address to the Masons, who then proceeded with the ceremonies of laying the cornerstone. Beneath it they placed a casket containing: "1st. Copies of the law creating Merced County. "2nd. Copies of the law providing for the erection of a Court House for Merced County. "3rd. Copies of the Great.Register of Merced County for the years 1871 and 1873. "4th. Court House bonds. "5th. Statement of the total taxable property, and total tax levied by Merced each year since its organization. "6th. Copies of the Merced Tribune, San Joaquin Valley Argus, San Francisco Bulletin, San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Call, San Francisco Post, San Francisco Chronicle, and Mariposa Gazette. "7th. A complete set of United States coins. "8th. A pint each of wheat and barley. "9th. Statistical report of school matters—total numbers of school children, number of school districts, etc." In April the court house was nearing completion and the board made preparations to accept and dedicate it. From their minutes: "April 7th, 1875. The Board met in special session pursuant to the call of the chairman. Present full board and clerk. "On motion of J. B. Cocanour it is ordered that the following named persons are appointed a committee to meet at the Court House on Wednesday, May 5th, 1875, to inspect the building and report the result of said examination to the Board of Supervisors prior to the reception and dedication of the same by the Board on that day. "District No. One: J. M. Montgomery, J. W. Stewart, Frank Larkin, Henry Nelson, A. B. Anderson, H. F. Buckley, John Ruddle, W. J. Hardwick, Silas March, H. A. Skelton. "District No. Two: J. F. Goodale, C. H. Huffman, N. B. Stone-road, R. Reynolds, P. Bennett, P. Carroll, James Cunningham, H. J. Ostrander, P. Y. Welch, Thomas Price, John Appling, S. C. Bates. "District No. Three: A. Stevinson, R. M. Wilson, A. S. Gavin, David Chedister, J. B. Sayres, Henry Ritter, Moses Korn, W. C. Turner, A. L. Cressey, W. P. Scott, W. N. Neill. Master of Ceremonies, P. D. Wigginton. Adjourned." On April 8 the board ordered that the county surveyor survey, take levels and set grade stakes at a distance of 150 feet from the court house on all sides, and that bids for the leveling would be received on May 3. The board began their May term, Monday, May 3. They transacted other business Monday and Tuesday and came to the court house matter on Wednesday, as per the order in April. The minutes for May 5 read: "Board met pursuant to adjournment. The committee heretofore appointed to inspect the Court House prior to its reception by the Board having thoroughly performed the duties of their trust, presented their Report, whereupon the Board ordered that the building, being constructed in strict accordance with the plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the architect, is hereby received from the hands of the contractor, and the County officers are authorized to remove the archieves of each in their respective offices. "It is further ordered the following Report of the Committee be spread at length on the minutes of the Board and published in the proceedings thereof: REPORT OF COMMITTEE TO INSPECT COURT HOUSE "To the Honorable Board of Supervisors of Merced County: "Gentlemen: We, the undersigned, your Committee appointed by your Hon. Body to examine and report upon the Court House now just completed, have thoroughly examined the building in company with the Architect, and are proud to say that the building is complete in all its details and reflects much credit on the Architect, A. A. Bennett, Esq., of Sacramento, its contractor, A. W. Burrell of Oakland, and your Hon. Body which has had supervision of the same; and in fact on everyone connected in the erection and ordering of the same; and we, as taxpayers of Merced County, congratulate ourselves and the people generally of the County of Merced that we have in our judgment full value received for the money expended. "We have also examined the furniture in said building, and in our judgement it is complete and durable and of the very best material, and reflects great credit on those who selected the same. We think your Hon. Body has used the most judicious economy in the distribution of the money appropriated by the Legislature for the construction and furnishing of the said building. "All of which is most respectfully submitted. "P. Y. Welch H. J. Ostrander J. F. Goodale H. Stevinson (Chairman) P. Bennett James Cunningham (Secretary) C. H. Huffman Sam C. Bates David Chedister A. B. Anderson J. B. Sears Thomas Price Frank Larkin N. B. Stoneroad J. W. Stewart P. Carroll R. Reynolds Wm. N. Neill W. J. Hardwick "Board adjourned until 9 A. M., May 7th, 1875." The Court House was dedicated May 5, 1875. Says the Merced Express of Saturday, May 8, 1875: THE NEW COURT HOUSE "The Dedication of Our New and Elegant Court House "On Wednesday last, in accordance with notice heretofore given in the columns of the Express, the new and magnificent structure designed by A. A. Bennett, Esq., of San Francisco, and built by A. W. Burrell, of Oakland, situated in the center of Court House Square, of our town, and which stands there a monument of our people's industry and enterprise, was received by the Board of Supervisors of Merced County and dedicated to the immaculate purposes of justice with imposing rites and ceremonies becoming the occasion. The ceremonies of receiving and dedicating took place in the District Court room of the building and were as follows: "At half past three o'clock P. M. the meeting was called to order by Capt. J. K. Mears, Chairman of the Board, who stated the object of the meeting to be the reception and dedication of the building. . ." Members of press invited up: W. J. Hill, Silver City Idaho Avalanche; C. A. Heaton, Fresno Review; and "ourself" (Frank H. Farrar, editor). A. W. Burrell, contractor, submitted his report to A. A. Bennett, architect. Bennett's report to the board was then read by R. H. Ward, Esq. The chairman then called upon Col A. Stevinson, the chairman of the committee appointed to inspect the building. Mr. Stevinson announced the committee ready and Samuel C. Bates, "the Secretary of the Committee," then read the report. Chairman Mears announced that the board accepted the building on behalf of the people, and the ceremonies closed with an oration by P. D. Wigginton, Esq. Mears then thanked the architect, the contractor, and the committee. In the evening H. A. Bloss of the El Captain tendered a social reunion. On May 7 the board appointed Bart Ahren the first janitor, at a salary of $75 a month, "to take charge of the new Court House, wind mill and tank, coal bin, fuel, etc." On the same day the sheriff was ordered to sell the old court house and jail at Snelling, which, since they had been vacated, had been rented to the Masonic Lodge. The minutes of the Board describe Bennett, the architect, as "of Sacramento"; the news story in the Express as "of San Francisco." W. H. McElroy, who entered the building business in Merced in the late eighties, thinks Bennett had an office in each city. Additional Comments: Extracted from: HISTORY OF MERCED COUNTY CALIFORNIA WITH A Biographical Review OF The Leading Men and Women of the County Who Have Been Identified with Its Growth and Development from the Early Days to the Present HISTORY BY JOHN OUTCALT ILLUSTRATED COMPLETE IN ONE VOLUME HISTORIC RECORD COMPANY LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 1925 File at: http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ca/merced/history/1925/historyo/mercedbe331ms.txt This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/cafiles/ File size: 33.0 Kb