THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF LAKE MERRITT,

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA: 1852-1907

A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty

of

California State University, Hayward

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in History

By

John Heinitz

May, 1992 THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF LAKE MERRITT,

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA: 1852-1907

By

John Heinitz

Approved: Date:

10~cx:::;,u~~ \2 ~ 'ttz • ~- ~;,fI-,'

.' ...... , PREFACE

The city of Oakland has a wonderfully exciting, diverse history with which many of its citizens are scarcely familiar. For example, the Lake Merritt that many Oakland citizens currently enjoy has an interesting history that was more contentious than one would probably expect. By studying the early development of the lake, a person can better appreciate the enjoyment the lake and its surrounding park offer today.

For instance, Lake Merritt was once the depository of much of the sewerage of the city, a giant cesspool that, especially during low tides, left mounds of unsightly, malodorous garbage on the muddy shores. Ambitious civic leaders proposed a project of building retaining walls around the outer perimeter of the water, dumping the silt from the bottom of the lake behind the walls, and building a boulevard on top of the reclaimed land. This project provoked vehement debate regarding the high cost of constructing a boulevard that many believed to be a luxury rather than a necessity.

Oakland's citizens are currently grappling with similar issues regarding Lake Merritt and the city's park systems.

iii iv

How much money, if any, should the city spend on improvements that some see as ornamental or luxurious, rather than essential? What type of improvements are best for the lake and its surrounding area? In this time of financial constraints, where would the money come from for maintaining or altering the current situation? How do the political circumstances within the city government support or detract from any proposed changes?

By studying the history of Oakland, and, in this instance, that of Lake Merritt, a person realizes that the people of Oakland can enjoy the lake and its surrounding area today because voters, almost one hundred years ago, worked through the questions and began the process of saving and improving the lake for future use. We have a responsibility to future generations of Oakland citizens to continue that process.

People who are interested in pursuing their study of

Oakland's rich history have a great deal of help available to them, especially with the resources and help of the Oakland

Public Library system, primarily the Oakland History Room in the main library. Not only does the library have a great deal of sources for study, but the librarians are helpful and diligent in their efforts to assist the library's patrons. I also enjoyed the use of the resources and the staff at the v

Oakland City Clerk's office, which stores the original city council minutes.

I am also indebted to Dr. William Bullough and Dr.

Richard Orsi. Their careful readings of the drafts, their guidance in directing my study, their helpful suggestions, and their unfailing support for my efforts taught me a great deal about the study of history and the sharing of my findings through writing.

I also give my thanks to my friends and colleagues at

Zion Lutheran Church and School, who have helped me in a variety of ways, not least being their continued friendship and support. Most importantly, I thank my wife Ruth, whose encouragement and assistance enabled me to undertake and complete this project. TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE iii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...... vii

CHAPTER

I. BEGINNINGS . 3

II. THE PROGRESSIVE AND CITY BEAUTIFUL MOVEMENTS .26

III. THE ELECTION OF 1892 .60

IV. THE ELECTION OF 1898 .94

V. THE ELECTION OF 1904 129

VI. THE ELECTION OF 1907 159

VII. EPILOGUE 175

BIBLIOGRAPHY 180

Appendices

A. THE DEED OF 1891 FROM THE OAKLAND WATERFRONT COMPANY TO THE CITY OF OAKLAND ...... 190

B. THE DEED OF 1874 FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO THE CITY OF OAKLAND ...... 192

C. THE AGREEMENT OF 1890 BETWEEN PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE CITY OF OAKLAND...... 194

D. THE LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE OF EIGHT: 1898 .. 199

E. LETTER ABOUT CENTRAL PARK; 1904 .... 203

vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

1 Map of Oakland by Julius Kellersberger, 1853

2 Oakland's Founding Trio and Dr. Samuel Merritt

57 Map of Oakland c. 1871

58 Lake Merritt, Along Lakeshore Avenue c. 1880

59 Map of Proposed Boulevard Around Lake Merritt, 1890

93 Map of Oakland, 1893

127 Map Showing Locations of Proposed Improvements, 1904

128 Map of the Controversial Sather Tract, 1904

158 Map Showing Locations of Proposed Improvements, 1907

174 Mayor Frank K. Mott and Mayor John L. Davie

vii """.~""="=.,. ",="b$"=~....~--J¥ .. 'J

Map of Oakland, by Julius Kellersberger, 1853

Mel Scott, The San Francisco Bay Area: A Metropolis in Perspective 2d ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 34.

1 Horace W. Edson Adams Andrew J. Carpentier Moon

Dr. Samuel Merritt

(Photographs courtesy of Oakland Public Library)

2 CHAPTER 1

BEGINNINGS

Lake Merritt today is the pride of Oakland. Located

in the heart of the city, it is often described as "the

jewel" in Oakland's crown. The lake's beginnings, however, were much more humble and contentious than one would expect.

Oakland developed around a natural tidal slough much larger than the current Lake Merritt. Fed by three creeks, which wound through salt marshes to their common destination, the

slough was actually an arm of the bay's estuary. Because the histories of the lake and the city are intertwined, a brief review of the early development of both Lake Merritt and

Oakland is necessary.

The native people living in the East Bay region were hunters and gatherers who lived "amidst plenty." They fished, hunted, gathered acorns from the numerous oak trees, harvested a variety of native plants, and rowed their canoes on the slough and out on the bay itself. The Spanish called them costefios, meaning "the coastal people," the origin of the most common name given to the natives living in this

3 4

area, "Costanoans." Descendents of these people prefer, however, the name "Ohlone." An Ohlone village was located in the area now known as Trestle Glen, which the earliest

American settlers named Indian Gulch. When the Spanish colonizers established Mission San Jose in 1797, the Ohlones came under their influence. By the time the Europeans became directly involved in settling the area known today as Alameda

County, most of the remaining Indian population was concentrated near the mission. 1

Europeans' involvement in the area surrounding the tidal slough that is now Lake Merritt began primarily with

Luis Peralta. Under the authority of the King of Spain,

Peralta received a grant of land when he retired from service in the Spanish military in 1820, a common practice to reward loyal service. Such gifts took the place of pensions and somewhat made up for the trials of serving in far-away places, where a soldier's pay was sometimes slow in arriving, if it arrived at all. 2

The Spanish governor of California, Don Pablo Vicente de Sola, made the land grant to Don Luis Maria Peralta on

October 18, 1820, when Peralta was sixty-six years old and

lBeth Bagwell, Oakland: The Story of a City (Novato: Presidio Press, 1982), 5-6.

2Ibid., 10. 5

the father of nine grown sons and daughters. The grant

consisted of eleven square leagues, or about 44,800 acres, of

land, making it one of the largest grants in California. It

extended approximately from the bay's shore to the top of the

hills, and from San Leandro Creek to Albany Hill. Known as

Rancho San Antonio, it included the future sites of Oakland,

Piedmont, Berkeley, Emeryville, Alameda, Albany, and part of

San Leandro. Since the King of Spain gave Peralta the land prior to Mexico's independence in 1821, the land grant was also one of the oldest grants in California. 3

Luis Peralta did not live on the ranch himself, however. He had previously received a grant of land near

Santa Clara and had established his home in the town of San

Jose. The land of the Rancho San Antonio remained unchanged, therefore, until his sons began their involvement in that area in the 1830s. In August 1842, Peralta divided his northern ranch among his four sons who soon developed homes on their land. He gave Ignacio the southern portion of the grant, from San Leandro Creek to approximately where Seminary

Avenue is today; Antonio received the land from Seminary

Avenue to the San Antonio Slough (now Lake Merritt); Vicente received the part from the southern portion of the slough

3DeWitt Jones, ed. "Oakland Parks and Playgrounds," typescript (Oakland: The Oakland Parks and Recreation Departments, 1936?), 3; Bagwell, Oakland, 10. 6

along the bay's shore to the northern part of today's Oakland

(including the site of the original town of Oakland); and

Jose Domingo obtained the northwestern section of the orginal

land grant, which included the present sites of Berkeley and

Albany.4

The Gold Rush in 1849 and the resulting increase in

population shattered the Peraltas' tranquil lives on their

estates. Early settlers who squatted on the Peraltas' lands

in the wake of the Gold Rush displayed contrasting attitudes

toward the land's ownership. Those who first settled along

the eastern shore of the San Antonio Slough believed that the

Peraltas' ownership of the land was legal and binding. The

people who settled on the other side of the slough, however,

assumed that the land belonged to the American government and

was thus public domain and open for settlement.

Moses Chase was the first American settler on the

"Contra Costa" (meaning opposite shore), the name by which

the East Bay region was then known. In 1849, after a futile

attempt in the gold fields, he pitched his tent near what is

now the foot of Broadway, Oakland's main street. In February

1850, Robert, William, and Edward Patten, three brothers from

Maine, traveled up the estuary, then known as San Antonio

4Peter T. Conmy, The Beginnings of Oakland, California, A.D.C. (Oakland: Oakland Public Library, 1961), 3-4, pamphlet. 7

Creek, and found Moses Chase seriously ill in his tent. A

warm friendship developed between the men as the Pattens

nursed Chase back to health. Realizing the potential the

land lying east of the slough had for agriculture, Chase and

the Patten brothers visited Antonio Peralta and leased one

hundred sixty acres from him. Over the next several years

they leased more land, eventually acquiring about four

hundred acres in all. Later they purchased the land from

Peralta and began a town named Clinton. The relationship

between the Pattens and Peralta was "both ethical and legal."

The newcomers respected Peralta's title to the land and

clearly obtained their ownership through legal means. s

Vicente Peralta, Antonio's brother and owner of the

land west of the slough, had to contend with settlers who

disputed his claim to the land. The founding trio of Oakland

included Horace W. Carpentier (1824-1918), Edson Adams (1824­

1888), and Andrew J. Moon (1800-?) (see pictures on page two). Lured by the opportunities presented by the Gold Rush, they came to California in 1849 and settled in Oakland in May

1850. Like many people of that time, they believed that the

land titles administered under the Mexican government were

invalidated when the United States acquired California in

SIbid., 8-11. 8

1848. Therefore, the land was public domain and open for settlement by anyone. 6

Vicente Peralta, aware of the threat to his ownership, obtained a writ of ejectment against the three squatters.

When Deputy Sheriff Kelly and an armed posse served the notice, Moon persuaded the sheriff to delay the eviction, a ploy that gave the trio time to negotiate a lease with

Peralta. They then laid out a town and sold parcels of land to other settlers, even though they were simply leasing the property and had no right to sell it. The trio's justification for their action is still unclear. Historians differ in their interpretations, whether Carpentier, Adams, and Moon "deliberately defrauded" Peralta or truly believed that Peralta's claim was null and void. The United States

Supreme Court ultimately validated the Peraltas' claims of ownership, but by the time the case had wound its way through the lengthy court system, the decision was invalidated by the great number of people living on the disputed land. 7

6Bagwell, Oakland, 25; Conmy, Beginnings, 11; Trying to settle the land disputes, Congress passed the Land Act of 1851 that established a three-member commission to settle the conflicting claims. See Richard Rice, William Bullough, Richard Orsi, The Elusive Eden: A New History of California (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988), 204-205.

7Conmy, Beginnings, 11; Bagwell, Oakland, 27, 32. 9

This lack of clear title to the land caused a great deal of controversy. The city of Oakland finally cleared up much of the confusion in July 1869 by having all property owners deed their land to city clerk Henry Hillerbrand, who, as a trustee, then promptly deeded it back to the owners, a maneuver that gave clear legal title to the existing owners. 8

The founding trio hired Julius Kellersberger to survey the area and layout a town (see map on page one) . In direct contrast to the wild social life of San Francisco, Oakland quickly attempted to become a settled community of homes and families. Kellersberger included seven blocks of land for public parks; Oakland's first public school began in July

1853; and by 1860 Oakland and Brooklyn, the town on the east side of San Antonio Slough, already had ten churches. 9

Meanwhile, Oakland's founding trio focused their attention on their land holdings near San Antonio Slough. Of

Adams, Moon, and Carpentier, the latter had the most enormous influence on the development of Oakland. Horace W.

Carpentier was born in Galway, New York, in 1824. He

8Bagwell, Oakland, 32-33; Conmy, Beginnings, 35.

9Jones, "Oakland Parks," 14; Bagwell, Oakland, 38.The original seven public parks were the following: Washington, Franklin, Harrison, Jefferson, Caroline, Lafayette, and Oakland. Some of their names have sinced changed and several no longer exist. Read Jones, "Oakland Parks," pp. 16-30, for a history of each of the squares. 10

graduated as a lawyer from Columbia University in 1848 and came to California in 1849. Using his skills as a lawyer to the utmost, he became wealthy engaging in a variety of pursuits, some at the expense of the town that he helped begin. 10

Carpentier used his influence in the state legislature to speed through passage of the act incorporating Oakland as a town, signed into law by Governor Bigler on May 4, 1852.

On May 10 the citizens of the town elected the following people as trustees of the town: A. W. Burrell, A. J. Moon,

Edson Adams, Amadee Marier, A. Staples, and F. K. Shattuck.

They held their first meeting on May 12 and elected Marier president and Shattuck secretary. At their second meeting on

May 17, the trustees signed away the ownership of the town's entire waterfront to Carpentier. 11

The trustees passed an ordinance that "sold, granted and released" to Carpentier the waterfront of Oakland "with all the improvements, rights and interests" belonging to him.

In return, Carpentier agreed to build three wharves and a schoolhouse for the town. The original act gave Carpentier ownership of the waterfront for thirty-seven years, but on

August 27, 1852, the trustees made the transaction permanent.

10Conmy, Beginnings, 10.

11Ibid., 19-21; Bagwell, Oakland, 33. 11

The citizens of Oakland, quite upset by the loss of their waterfront, filed a petition on September 10, 1853, demanding that the trustees rescind their action. Upon the trustees' refusal to overturn the controversial ordinance, some of the citizens gathered in protest and damaged some of Carpentier's property, for which he brazenly filed suit against the city for $4,500 in damages. Civic leaders attempted to gain control of the waterfront for years through the court system, but the agile Carpentier stymied their efforts. While Samuel

Merritt was mayor, Carpentier, in 1868, transferred title, in a complicated scheme, to the newly-created Oakland Waterfront

Company, a move discussed later. Oakland finally got complete control over its waterfront in 1910, when Frank K.

Mott was mayor. 12

Carpentier represented Contra Costa County, consisting of most of the East Bay prior to the formation of Alameda

County in 1853, in the state Assembly, a seat he took after successfully defending himself against accusations of fraud.

Three men competed for the legislative seat in the election held on March 25, 1853: Carpentier of Oakland, Robert A.

Farrelly of what would later become San Lorenzo, and B. R.

12Conmy, Beginnings, 21-22; read Bagwell, Oakland, 42­ 46, for a persuasive argument that Carpentier, even when working to incorporate the town of Oakland, was already planning and manipulating to gain ownership of the waterfront. 12

Holliday of Martinez. After the election Carpentier claimed victory with 519 votes to Farrelly's 254 and Holliday's 192.

Farrelly promptly charged Carpentier with fraud. The county

clerk sustained the accusation and refused to give Carpentier

a certificate of election. 13

The state legislature's committee on elections

investigated the allegations. They discovered that a total of 377 votes were actually cast in the election while a census taken ten weeks earlier had counted only 130 voters within the area. Furthermore, Carpentier's yellow ballots lay in a deep pile at the top of the ballot box, and it took two hours of counting Carpentier's ballots before reaching the first of Farrelly's white ballots, although three of the last men who voted swore that they had voted for Farrelly, in which case their white ballots should have been on top of the pile. Even though the evidence against him seemed conclusive, the Board of Supervisors, with the Assembly affirming their action, declared Carpentier the victor of the election. He took his seat in the Assembly on April 11,

1853. 14

13Edgar J. Hinkel, William E. McCann, eds. Oakland, 1852~1938: Some Phases of the Social, Political, and Economic History of Oakland. California v. 2 (Oakland: The Oakland Public Library), 737

14Ibid. 13

While Carpentier was securing incorporation of the town and consolidating his control over its waterfront, industry began to develop in Oakland. Much of the town's early growth came from the growing demand for the lumber obtained from a magnificent stand of redwood trees located within an area of approximately five square miles in the hills. The trees measured from twelve to twenty feet in diameter, with several trees measuring about thirty feet in diameter and perhaps towering three hundred feet in height.

Captains of ships entering the bay through the Golden Gate, sixteen miles from the Oakland hills, would sight the trees in the hills and use them as navigational markers. 15

The wondrous grove of trees attracted a lumber industry that started in the 1840s and grew rapidly during the 1850s. The building and rebuilding of San Francisco, which was destroyed by fire six times in eighteen months during 1850 and 1851, and many developing small towns like

Oakland, San Antonio, Clinton, and Martinez, created a high demand for the wood taken from the hills. During the 1850s the lumber mills were the "economic center" of the East Bay,

15William F. Gibbons, "The Redwoods in the Oakland Hills," Erython 1 (August 1893), reprinted in "Oakland Miscellany," 1 [typed transcripts collected by Reference Department, Oakland Library, 1947], 1,3; Sherwood D. Burgess, "The Forgotten Redwoods of the East Bay," California Historical Society Ouarterly 30 (March 1951): 2-3. 14

and nearly all the east-west roads were planned in relation

to the mills. For example, the route to San Antonio became

the modern-day Park Boulevard and Thirteenth Avenue. The

lumber industry was so productive, and destructive, that by

1860 "only a sea of stumps marked the site" of the original

forest. Shortly after that not even the stumps remained.

The trees covering the hillside today are the second growth

of the magnificent forest that once stood there. 16

Fortunately, other economic opportunites presented

themselves as the trees were disappearing. Not too

surprisingly, Horace Carpentier was among the first to

capitalize on them. He recognized that he could supplement his considerable income from waterfront activies by building

a toll bridge across the San Antonio Slough. The slough at this time was a great impediment to travel between the early towns on both sides of the water. At high tide it was a

large body of water covering a greater area than it does now, but when the water receded at low tide it uncovered ugly,

smelly, mud flats. People wishing to cross the slough had to

journey around the entire area or row a small boat across.

Therefore, the county supervisors signed a contract with T. c. Gilman to construct a bridge spanning the neck of the

16Bagwell, Oakland, 18-19; Burgess, "The Forgotten Redwoods," 7, 9, 11. 15

slough, near the location of the Twelfth Street bridge today,

for $7,400. When the county was unable to pay him, he went

into association with Carpentier. On June 6, 1853,

Carpentier proposed to the city leaders that he build a

bridge spanning the neck of the slough and connecting the

flourishing towns of Clinton and San Antonio on the east and

Oakland on the west. 17

Since the proposed bridge constituted a vital link in

the simple transportation network between the towns,

Carpentier recognized the opportunity to make money from the project. He agreed to build the bridge on the condition that

Oakland's civic leaders give him permission to collect tolls

for its use. When the city's trustees agreed to his offer,

Carpentier built the bridge and charged "each footman, twelve cents; horse, cattle, etc., each twenty-five cents; vehicle drawn by one or two animals, fifty cents, and other things in

like proportion." Furthermore, he specified that the toll bridge would "be free from taxation or assessment." He agreed to "surrender" the bridge to the county to be used as a free bridge if, within twelve months of construction, the county would pay him the "original cost of its construction, together with interest thereon at three per cent per month."

Of course, Carpentier knew that the county, which had been

17Bagwell, Oakland, 47-48. 16

unable to pay Gilman a short time before, would not be able to raise the necessary money within the year. 18

Deeply resenting Carpentier's profiting from the public's use of the toll bridge, the people in the communities that it served promptly labeled it the "Bridge of

Sighs." The issue was not resolved, however, until 1862, when Oakland's Board of Supervisors settled with Carpentier, and the bridge finally became a free transportation route. 19

While serving in the state legislature, Carpentier succeeded in getting Oakland classified as a city, when

Governor Bigler approved a bill raising Oakland's status from a town to a city on March 25, 1854. The borders of Oakland remained roughly the same, but the legislative body became the city council and the chief executive a mayor. Oakland's first elected mayor was none other than Horace Carpentier himself. 20

Through crafty manipulation Carpentier became quite wealthy, and, at the same time, incurred the wrath and resentment of many people throughout the city he helped to create. While condemning his unethical behavior, many have

18Frank K. Mott, "The Creation, History and Development of Lake Merritt," [1936], typewritten, 4-5.

19Ibid., 6.

20Conmy, Beginnings, 26-27. 17

appreciated his accomplishments that benefited the city of

Oakland. The historian Beth Bagwell wrote that Carpentier, after establishing the town of Oakland, "might easily have won a contest for the most hated man in Northern California."

Yet without Carpentier and his associates, Oakland might never have developed into a "major center of industry, commerce, and shipping. ,,21

Another individual, however, also initiated improvements to the town and added to his wealth in doing so, but he did it in such a manner that most of Oakland's citizens respected him throughout his life. That person was

Dr. Samuel Merritt, for whom the lake ultimately was named.

Merritt first arrived in San Francisco the morning of May 5,

1850, as the owner of his own ship, which he had sailed from

New York. He arrived the day after a huge fire devastated

San Francisco and people were desperate for his goods. He sold his wares for a handsome profit and thus began his good fortune in business. Although trained as a physician, he rarely practiced his profession and instead focused his efforts on various pursuits that made him a wealthy man (see picture on page two) .22

21Bagwell, Oakland, 30-31.

22Henning Koford, Dr. Samuel Merritt: His Life and Achievements (Oakland: The Kennedy Co. Printers, 1938) 17, 23. 18

An imposing six feet, three inches in height and weighing three hundred forty pounds, with a booming voice to match, Merritt attracted attention wherever he went. His personality was as overwhelming as his physical presence.

Henning Koford, his biographer, wrote that "he awed strangers and overwhelmed his enemies. Some hated him; many loved him.

He was never ignored. A man of many eccentricities, his exuberant vitality made him a good friend or a bitter enemy. "23

Merritt first came to the Contra Costa in 1851 and fell in love with the area. He visited often, until in May

1852 he purchased from Samuel A. Morrison a large piece of property in Oakland for $6,000. The land occupied almost the entire western bank of San Antonio Slough, from what is now

Fourteenth Street to the intersection of Harrison Street and

Grand Avenue. He built his home on that property and, over the years, divided the land into parcels on which he built homes that he sold for nice profits. 24

On November 2, 1867, the citizens of Oakland elected

Merritt as mayor to finish the unexpired term of W. W. Crane, and in the spring of 1868 they elected him again for a full

23Ibid., 7-8.

24Ibid., 17-18; Bill O'Brien, "The Restless Shore," Express, 29 February 1987, 10; Oakland Times, 18 August 1890, 1. 19

term of office. As mayor, Merritt vigorously attacked various problems of the city. For instance, he arranged the maneuver, discussed earlier, by which the city's property owners gained clear title to their land holdings. It is

sometimes difficult, however, to judge Merritt's motivations

for his various accomplishments. A generous individual who

desired to improve his city, he nevertheless managed to add to his personal wealth while making several of his

improvements. 25

Merritt recognized the potential beauty inherent in

San Antonio Slough. At low tide, however, the ugly, malodorous mud flats destroyed the slough's scenic appeal.

Gathering the consent of his neighbors who owned property bordering the slough, he began raising money for the construction of a dam built along the lines of the Twelfth

Street bridge. The proposed dam would keep the waters of the slough at the level of high tide, thus keeping the unsightly mud covered.

Since he owned a lumber yard nearby, Merritt

"thriftily" decided to construct the dam out of wood, with the unhappy result that the dam was washed away. He promptly built a sturdier dam that was completed in 1869. Able to convince his neighbors to contribute around $4,500 to the

25Conmy, Beginnings, 38. 20

project, he nevertheless paid about $17,000 of the final

costs himself. All the contributors then generously conveyed

their interest in the dam to the city. The building of the

dam was Merritt's first major civic project. 26

Oakland undoubtedly benefited from Merritt's

construction of the dam that turned a smelly eyesore into a

lake around which the city would continue to grow. Merritt also profited from his venture. Although he personally

contributed about $17,000 to the project, his "extensive real estate holdings" bordering the lake increased in value as a

result of the dam. Frank K. Mott, who also made many civic

improvements as Oakland's mayor from 1905 to 1915, wondered

"as to what percentage of [Merritt's] motive was in behalf of the City and what in behalf of the surrounding property owners" when building the dam. Mott "generously" suggested leaving it at "fifty-fifty. "27

After the completion of the dam, the name of the body of water gradually evolved from San Antonio Slough to its current name, Lake Merritt. Although the city leaders did not officially change the name, it probably resulted from the

26Mott, "Lake Merritt," 7-8; Koford, Merritt, 24-25.

27Leslie Flint, "The Heart of Oakland: A Walking Guide to Lake Merritt," [pamphlet], n.d., 4; Mott, "Lake Merritt," 8. 21

citizens of Oakland referring to it as Merritt's lake. Time and usage gradually made the reference permanent. 28

Annoyed by hunters trespassing on his property to shoot ducks, Merritt, as mayor of Oakland, also persuaded

State Senator Edward Thompson to introduce legislation declaring Lake Merritt a wildfowl refuge, a bird sanctuary.

On March 18, 1870, Governor Henry Haight signed the bill into law, thus establishing the first wildlife refuge in the

United States until 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt set aside "Pelican Island, off the coast of Florida, as a federal refuge."29

Merritt made an enormous contribution to the development of the city when he became involved, along with

Horace Carpentier, in enticing the creators of the first transcontinental railroad to choose Oakland as its western terminus. Oakland emerged victorious from the competition of several cities vying for the honor, and the related business, of becoming the railroad's western terminus. A "complicated scheme" lured the "Big Four" of the Central Pacific Railroad-

-Charles Crocker, Leland Stanford, Collis P. Huntington, and

Mark Hopkins--to decide in Oakland's favor. The great

28Koford, Merritt, 24.

29paul F. Covel, People Are for the Birds (Oakland: Western Interpretive Press, 1978), 3-4. 22

compromise between the Central Pacific and the town of

Oakland began with Oakland's city council passing an ordinance recognizing Carpentier's clear title to the waterfront and giving up all claims to his land. Then on

March 31, 1868, Carpentier deeded the entire waterfront to the Oakland Waterfront Company, which had been created the day before just for that purpose. The next day, the Oakland

Waterfront Company signed an agreement with the Central

Pacific regarding the railroad's use of the waterfront for its western terminus. 3o

Both Carpentier and Merritt personally benefited from the complicated transaction. The amount of money Carpentier received for giving up the title to the waterfront was "a well-guarded secret," but he also became the president of the

Oakland Waterfront Company, in which he owned a controlling interest, and obtained a seat on the Central Pacific

Railroad's board of directors. Merritt became the vice- president of the Oakland Waterfront Company and "also profited privately. "31

30Charles Wollenberg, Golden Gate Metropolis: Perspectives on Bay Area History (Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, 1985), 125­ 126; Bagwell, Oakland, 51-52; Conmy, Beginnings, 38-39.

31Bagwell, Oakland, 51; the other officers of the Oakland Waterfront Company were Leland Stanford of the Big Four, Lloyd Tevis (an official of the Central Pacific), E. R. 23

The city of Oakland remained a bystander through much

of the transaction, with the city council simply passing the

ordinances its mayor desired. As a result, the city emerged

with a mixed blessing. The Central Pacific did indeed make

Oakland its western terminus, but once again the city lost

any control it might have had over its own waterfront.

Oakland did receive a small parcel of the waterfront between

Webster and Franklin Streets in the compromise, and credit is

given to Merritt who "withheld his signature" until

Carpentier had deeded to the city the part of the waterfront

containing Lake Merritt. But other than that, Carpentier had

simply merged his interests with those of the railroad and

continued to profit through the city's lack of control of its

waterfront. Koford did not say much about the entire transaction besides trumpeting the dubious claim that Merritt was "the only man who ever succeeded in forcing concessions

from the wily Carpentier." With the stakes involved, it was a small concession for Carpentier to make. 32

The presence of the first transcontinental railroad greatly benefited Oakland, its western terminus. The railroad had a positive economic, social, and cultural impact

Carpentier (Horace's brother), E. H. Miller (the secretary of the Central Pacific), and John B. Felton.

32Bagwell, Oakland, 51-52; Oakland Tribune, 18 August 1890, 1; Koford, Merritt, 33. 24

that greatly improved the city's stature. It also, however, added to Oakland's inferior perception of itself in comparison to its sister city across the bay, for the true commercial objective of the railroad was San Francisco, not

Oakland. As negotiations progressed between Merritt,

Carpentier, and the Big Four of the Central Pacific Railroad,

Leland Stanford wrote a letter on February 12, 1869, reassuring Merritt of the railroad's intentions to use

Oakland as its terminus. In it he referred to the main goal of the Central Pacific: "Primarily the object of the Railroad

Company, in relation to the westward terminus, is to give the best possible accommodations to the business of San

Francisco. To do so, the judgement of the Company is to run the line to Oakland. ,,33

The Big Four built two wharves in Oakland, which enabled them to serve San Francisco better. Along the northwest waterfront they built by late 1878 a wharf reaching nearly two miles into the bay, thus negating the inconvenient delays to shipping caused by low tides. Freight trains travelled the length of the wharf and transferred their cargo to boats headed to San Francisco. The Oakland Mole, the major passenger depot, was another wharf extending into the

33George T. Clark, Leland Stanford: War Governor of California. Railroad Builder. and Founder of Stanford University (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1931), 314. 25

bay. Trains would stop on the pier where passengers would disembark, walk a few feet, and board ferries going to San

Francisco. The Big Four built both wharves on the assumption that most rail freight and passengers would not stop in

Oakland, but would continue to San Francisco, the dominant city on the West Coast. 34

Oakland greatly benefited from the coming of the railroad. The business associated with the railroad attracted many people to live and work in Oakland. The influence of the railroad would continue to play a major role in the future struggles between the citizens of Oakland as they tried to improve Lake Merritt and to develop the city's park system.

34Wollenberg, Golden Gate Metropolis, 127-128. CHAPTER 2

THE PROGRESSIVE AND CITY BEAUTIFUL MOVEMENTS

During the first forty years of Oakland's existence, the average citizen of Oakland had little impact on the development of Lake Merritt. In response to proposals made by wealthy and influential political figures such as Horace

Carpentier and Samuel Merritt, the city council simply approved the submitted plans of the toll bridge and dam and let those individuals undertake the projects to their completion. Since Carpentier and Merritt financed the improvements themselves, the city council did not seek the approval of the voters of Oakland.

As the town of Oakland grew in area and population, however, men of Carpentier and Merritt's political stature and influence gradually lost their dominant power over the city council, and the elected members of the council became more accountable for their actions to the voters.

Furthermore, the cost of proposed projects increased as the plans themselves became more ambitious. As a result, the council needed the sanction of the voters to raise money for specific projects by the purchasing of bonds.

26 27

Two trends that were developing around the country, the progressive reform movement and the "City Beautiful" movement, influenced the leaders of Oakland who were attempting to improve Lake Merritt and the stature of the city itself. In order to understand the changes within

Oakland and the context in which the city's bond elections of

1892, 1898, 1904, and 1907 occurred, it is necessary to examine the two movements.

Progressivism developed after America's Civil War and the subsequent problems following Reconstruction. It originated on the local level rather than the national, in cities rather than in the state or federal governments. The movement reached the federal level, epitomized by the administrations of presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow

Wilson, only in its later phases. Progressivism was well under way in the 1890s, when reformers managed to significantly change the municipal governments of New York,

Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, and other cities. By 1895, more than seventy citizens' organizations had already been formed to improve city conditions. 1

With progressivism beginning in the cities, the first battle lines drawn were typically between the reformers and the established political leaders. This usually meant a

lRichard Hofstadter, ed., The Progressive Movement: 1900-1915 (New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1963), 7,9. 28

confrontation with the city's leading political machine and its existing bosses. The machine was the "most visible" opposition to the reform movement and the most appealing target of attack by the reformers. Through the machine and its bosses, many different ward communities and lower- and middle-income groups worked together to influence the city's central government. 2

A number of factors had contributed to the emergence of the political machines and bosses as the leaders of a city. Cities were growing very rapidly in area and population; a high number of immigrants contributed to the diversity of the population's linguistic, religious, and social groups; the municipal government was often bulky, inefficient, and obsolete; and commercial and industrial growth added to the demands placed on the government's machinery, 3

As the cities expanded and became more difficult to govern, political parties evolved into the dominant organizations of authority within the municipal governments.

Their purpose was to win and retain office, not necessarily to provide capable administration, but they at least provided

2S amuel P. Hays, "The Politics of Reform in Municipal Government in the Progressive Era," Pacific Northwest Quarterly 55 (Qctober 1964): 162.

3Charles N. Glaab and Theodore A. Brown, A History of Urban America (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1967), 201. 29

a stable environment, "in the sense of predictable behavior," in which the government could work. The men within the parties who "could allocate the patronage and the graft most skillfully" in order to win elections, became the bosses of the city. Through favors and patronage, bosses gained the support of the various conflicting interest groups within the city, such as poor immigrants who normally would not have had much influence in the government, and managed to translate their political support into continued victories at the voting booths for the party the boss represented. 4

The ward system of government found in most cities supported and sustained the influence of the political machines and the city bosses. The city council members were local leaders intent on working for the best interests of the ward they represented rather than the general welfare of the city as a whole. They strived to defend and improve their ward's various interests and concerns with the local economy, education, recreation, and other items. The ward system gave diverse urban communities, usually associated with specific geographical areas within the city, the opportunity to

4Glaab and Brown, Urban America, 179; Judd Kahn, Imperial San Francisco: Politics and Planning in an American City. 1897-1906 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979), 234. 30

express their views and concerns through their city council member, who worked expressly for their interests. 5

When reformers then attacked the political machines

"as the most visible institutional element of the ward system," they were actually challenging the entire ward system and the political power of the lower- and middle­ income groups that supported that system. Therefore the reform movement, although fought within the political arena, actually was a conflict between socio-economic groups. The historian Samuel P. Hays, in a significant study, noted that the people who supported the movement for reform in municipal government were from the upper class of society rather than the lower or middle classes. Many of the reform leaders

"often explicitly, if not implicitly, expressed fear that lower- and middle-income groups had too much influence in decision-making." The ward system had especially given representation to the lower- and middle-class groups, with most of the elected ward officials being from those same groups. Thus the lower and middle classes were the major opposition to the reform movement. 6

The reform movement working for change in city government, therefore, "constituted an attempt by upper-

5Hays, "Politics of Reform," 161-166.

6Ibid., 159-164. 31

class, advanced professional, and large business groups" to

acquire "formal political power" so they could develop their

own ideas of "desirable public policy." To gain such power,

they had to take it from the "previously dominant lower- and

middle-class elements" that controlled the municipal

government through the ward system. The two socio-economic

groups "came from entirely different urban worlds, and the

political system fashioned by one was no longer acceptable to

the other. ,,7

Reformers used the rhetoric of public government, but

they "in no sense meant that all segments of society should be involved equally in municipal decision-making." Instead, they believed that the city would prosper if the "business

community controlled" the city government. The city's business leaders had grown in influence as industrialism had developed, but the leaders found themselves denied entrance to the formal machinery of government dominated by the local political leaders and the common, working-class citizen. The business leaders discovered that the city officials often did not agree with their opinions concerning public policy.8

Therefore business leaders sought other means of

influencing the affairs of the city. Not content to wage

7Ibid., 162.

8Ibid., 160, 166. 32

battle simply through the ballot box, they often applied

"direct influence--if not verbal persuasion, then bribery and corruption." The relationships between business and formal government "became a maze of accommodations, a set of political arrangements which grew up because effective power had few legitimate means of accomplishing its ends." This relationship, however, proved too burdensome, expensive, and uncertain for the business groups and "upper third of socio­ economic groups in general." Thus they worked for more direct control over municipal government. 9

The business leaders sought to improve the city's government structure by replacing the ward system with what they they thought was a more efficient organization, that of the successful business enterprise. The gradual application of business ideology to municipal government translated into a decision-making process that was more centralized and the use of expert administrators to manage the complicated affairs of the city, with the voters exercising, in effect, a

"periodic referendum on the overall results." Ultimately, municipal reform in many cities succeeded in passing the commission, strong-mayor, or city-manager plans of government

9Ibid., 166-167. 33

structure, which put into effect many of the business ideals

proposed by the reformers. 10

Gradually, the progressives working in the various

cities began to combine their knowledge and effort in order

to achieve greater success. This resulted in the formation

of the National Municipal League in 1894. The league grew rapidly and soon began to publish the National Municipal

Reyiew, which discussed the administrative problems of

cities. By 1899 the league had issued a model city charter

"designed to correct some of the more glaring weaknesses of municipal government." It provided for expanded home rule, the attempt by cities to escape the smothering regulations and influence of the state governments, a stronger mayor and city council, and trained administrators. 11

The National Municipal League, however, did not lead the efforts at municipal reform. Instead, it developed as a

result "of maturing reform movements in almost every city in the country." The model charter's provisions had already been tried out in various ways in many cities across the country. The league served an important function, though,

since it "certified, so to speak, that concern with urban

lOIbid., 168; Glaab and Brown, Urban America, 196-197.

llGlaab and Brown, Urban America, 193-194; Mel Scott, American City Planning Since 1890 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), 41-42. 34

political affairs had become nationalized, and it marked the

coalescence of efforts and campaigns that had previously been

isolated. ,,12

The City Beautiful movement was similar to the

political reform movement that ocurred within cities in the

late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It also began

on a local level and ended on the national, and many of the

reformers who struggled for change within the municipal

government also strived to improve the harsh living and

working conditions of the cities. Advocates of the City

Beautiful disagreed with the traditional "agrarian rhetoric,"

which proclaimed that cities were unnatural and needed to be eliminated as a blight on nature. Instead, urban reformers argued that cities could be improved and made to benefit

society. The flaw of existing cities, according to the proponents of the City Beautiful, resulted from haphazard growth. Therefore, the solution was to plan the development of cities and create a better environment in which the 13 citizens could live.

The City Beautiful movement had its roots in a variety of earlier reforms and events. Officially named in

1899, the City Beautiful movement reached its height during

12Glaab and Brown, Urban America, 194.

13 Ibid., 234; Bagwell, Beth, Oakland: The Story of a ~ (Novato: Presidio Press, 1982), 171-72. 35

the few years beginning in 1902. Yet the movement had its

origin within the context of "the growing sense of

responsibility for the public welfare" that had been

developing for the previous three or four decades, containing

"interrelated movements for developing pure water supplies,

controlling contagious diseases, creating effective sewerage

systems, and providing parks." The zeal of the reformers in the progressive movement also contributed to the enthusiasm

of th e Clty' Beautl'fu1 . 14

A more direct ancestor, however, to the City

Beautiful movement was the early park and boulevard movement, which had its beginnings in the early use of cemeteries as pleasant alternatives to the suburban environment. In the early nineteenth century, gardeners developed "suburban burial grounds" into romantic settings to provide "interment

sites as well as areas for strolling and picnicking." Mount

Auburn in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for instance, opened in

1831 for this purpose. The movement spread throughout New

England for the next fifteen years, with "thousands of

14Wl'll'lam H. Wilson, The City Beautiful Movement (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1989), 53; Scott, American City Planning, 11. 36

visitors" enjoying the "rural surroundings" at Laurel Hill in

Philadelphia and New York City's Greensward, among others. 15

Two pioneers of the park movement, Andrew Jackson

Downing and Frederick Law Olmsted, argued, however, that this creative use of cemeteries could not take the place of conventional parks. The cemeteries were privately owned and

"socially stratified," available only "to those with the time and means to reach them," and "dedicated to potentially incompatible functions. ,,16

Dissatisfied with the inadequacy of the cemetery movement and the lack of parks in urban settings, people such as Downing and Henry W. S. Cleveland traveled to various cities designing public parks. Chief among the early proponents of the park and boulevard movement, however, was

Frederick Law Olmsted, who received a tremendous opportunity to apply his ideas on urban parks when New York City's leaders selected him in 1856 to design the city's Central

Park. Central Park's success was "quick and impressive."

Many other cities soon enlisted Olmsted's help in designing their own parks. Olmsted urged them to establish "whole systems of parks, connected by broad and tree-lined boulevards." For with a park and boulevard system in place,

15 'l W1 son, City Beautiful, 16-17; Glaab and Brown, Urban America, 254.

16 'l W1 son, City Beautiful, 16-17. 37

Olmsted pointed out that "even the city's business and industrial areas would then be within reach of the fresher air and the soothing colors of rural nature."l?

While capitalizing on his success in planning park and boulevard systems for many different cities, Olmsted further developed his ideas concerning the values of parks to the urban environment. He demonstrated how a system of parks and boulevards could "direct the growth of newer residential areas while it relieved traffic, provided carriage drives, and permitted diverse, specialized parks." An additional benefit was that the design could "stifle urban sectional jealousies" by bringing some open, green spaces into all reSl. dentla . 1 areas. 18

Other people studied Olmsted's ideas and designs, and came to accept the "notion of closely juxtaposing urban and rural environments, in order to improve the former." This acceptance led to a general park and boulevard movement in the united States beginning in the 1870s and slowly growing until it received additional impetus with the Columbian 19 Exposition held in Chicago in 1893.

l?Glaab and Brown, Urban America, 254-255.

18wilson, City Beautiful, 26.

19G1aab and Brown, Urban America, 255. 38

In 1890 Frederick Law Olmsted and his associate Henry

Sargent Codman traveled to Chicago and began working with

Daniel Hudson Burnham and his partner John Welborn Root in planning the exposition. Olmsted is generally given credit, along with his other contributions, for choosing the site of the fair on the "marshy, largely unimproved site at Jackson

Park," while Root suggested the concept of "a water basin

surrounded by the major exhibition buildings." Their

contributions, although significant, dim in comparison to the 20 dominating presence of Burnham.

The plans for the Columbian Exposition were on such a grand scale that the seven thousand workers under Burnham's direction built, in effect, an entire new city for the fair.

Moving at a frenetic pace, they planned, designed, built, operated, and maintained the city within the short period of three years. Every aspect of a modern city was provided for,

including complex urban services like "water, sewerage, transportation facilites, and police and fire protection."

The completed spectacle, dubbed the "Great White City" for

its gleaming white buildings, managed to provide for the needs of all its visitors. Almost half a million people toured the new city on its opening day in May 1893, and by

20Wilson, City Beautiful, 53-54. 39

the time the exposition closed in October "more than

27,000,000 admissions had been counted. "21

The overwhelming success of the Columbian Exposition not only advanced the cause of the park and boulevard movement but also expanded it. The formation of the Great

White City demonstrated the concept of civic planning in its entirety, not limiting itself to the establishment of parks and boulevards. At the exposition a variety of experts, such as city planners, architects, and landscape architects, worked together to design "an idealized urban environment of boulevards, buildings, and park grounds," incorporating a vast array of urban services. The idea of "quickly making or remaking other cities on a vast scale" grew from the accomplishment of the Great White City. Civic leaders across the nation studied the possibilites of planning improvements ln. t h'elr respectlve. towns. 22

The lofty reputation of the Columbian Exposition fostered a common misconception that modern historians refute. The historian William Wilson, in his book The City

Beautiful Movement, described "one of the twentieth century's great historiographical cliches" as being the interpretation that the Columbian Exposition "was the inspiration for the

21Ibid., 62; Glaab and Brown, Urban America, 260. 22 Beth Bagwell, Oakland: The Story of a City (Novato: Presidio Press, 1982), 171; Wilson, City Beautiful, 62. 40

City Beautiful movement and the beginning of comprehensive city planning in the United States."23

Although understanding that the "assumption is plausible," Wilson argued that it is "mostly mistaken." His arguments include the fact that the chronology of events does not support the misconception. The fair ended in 1893, but

"the City Beautiful movement was not named until 1899 and did not mature until 1902 and after." Furthermore, the "general adoption" of certain architectural features presented in the

Great White City waited until after the turn of the century.

In summarizing his argument, Wilson asserted that there

"simply was no demonstrable linear development from the fair" to the later "rebirth of interest in civic design and the rlse. of natlona. l'lmprovement organlza. t'lons. ,,24

Glaab and Brown acknowledge that success of the fair

"stimulated intense enthusiasm for city planning." They judge, though, that the fame of the Columbian Exposition "as the great generator of subsequent city planning became distorted, obscuring the significance of the park and boulevard movement that had preceded it. ,,25

23Wl• 1 son,ltyC' Beautl. f u,1 53 .

24 Ibid., 53,64

25Glaab and Brown, Urban America, 260-261. 41

Although not a direct ancestor of the City Beautiful movement, Glaab and Brown note that the "symbolic value of the magnificent fair can hardly be overstated." The

Columbian Exposition "encouraged people" to "believe that with sufficient effort and imagination" they could reshape their cities "nearer to images of civilized living.,,26

Wilson described as "evident" that the Columbian

Exposition was "the focus of a wide variety" of advances

"related to the City Beautiful." He listed the following:

"sanitation; aesthetics; rationalized urban functions; women's involvement in culture, civic improvement, and urban reform; building design; artistic collaboration; architectural professionalism; and civic spirit." While crediting the fair with such important contributions, he once again rightfully denied that the exposition was the "origin of many of these impulses," while acknowledging the fair's

"enormous influence.,,27

The success of the Columbian Exposition in Chicago had an immediate effect on San Francisco. M. H. de Young, the publisher of the San Francisco Chronicle, was one of the

California directors at the fair in the Chicago. He proposed the idea of moving many of the exhibits of the Great White

26 Ibid .

27 W1'lson, City Beautiful, 60. 42

City to San Francisco and having a similar fair there. De

Young had good reasons for suggesting such an ambitious project. The United States was suffering from a severe economic depression in 1893. As a result, numerous banks had failed in San Francisco, and many people were unemployed.

While actively involved in the Columbian Exposition, de Young had witnessed the positive effect the fair had on the

"business climate" of Chicago. He thought that a similar festivity could benefit San Francisco also. This was the birth of San Francisco's California Midwinter International

Exposition, more commonly known as the Midwinter Fair, which ran from January 27, 1894, to July 4 of that same year. 28

The expense for providing proper housing for the exhibits was one of the initial obstacles to the project.

With no public funds available, de Young and his associates raised money from the community. They established a committee of over one hundred people who canvassed the city asking for money. The committee urged businesses and social groups to donate as much as they could, and they exhorted laborers to give up one day's pay. The citizens of San

28Clary, Raymond H., The Making of Golden Gate Park: 1865-1906 (San Francisco: Don't Call It Frisco Press, 1980), 111-112, 114. 43

Francisco responded by contributing $344,320, enough money to

construct the necessary buildings to house the exhibits. 29

De Young had originally planned a local fair, but a

number of cities and counties "demanded" a role, so the plans were expanded to include the entire state of California. The

result was that every county within the state, nearly every

state in the United States, and "thirty-seven foreign nations" contributed exhibits. The initial plan for the site was for sixty acres in Golden Gate Park, but with the

increase of participation the site grew to nearly two hundred acres. 30

Although ideas presented in such events as the

Columbian Exposition and the Midwinter Fair had a dynamic effect on many people and cities throughout the nation, advocates of the City Beautiful movement, and its ancestors, typically belonged to the higher socioeconomic classes. This tendency obviously influenced the formation of the movement's ideology and its methods of implementing its plans. The supporters of the City Beautiful were "mostly male" and part of the "urban middle class or upper middle class." Many of them owned or managed businesses that were large by their communities' standards. For example, they were "newspaper

29 Ibid., 112.

30 Ibid., 112-13. 44

editors, managers of manufacturing plants,or owners of sizable retail establishments." Sometimes there was representation from smaller businesses, and, "rarely, " from skilled labor. Professional people such as "attorneys, bankers, physicians, and real estate specialists and investors" also joined the movement. The experts of the City

Beautiful movement usually belonged to this same class and worked well with the "local elites."31

The women involved in the City Beautiful were from the same upper socioeconomic classses and "were often the wives of business leaders." They were active in civic improvement campaigns working with the men to promote some plans of beautification or cleanliness. They tended, however, to form organizations separate from the men and to promote "more specialized causes, such as street sanltatlon... "32

As members of the upper classes of society, City

Beautiful "ideologues" were class conscious in a "non-Marxian sense." They acknowledged "individual mobility" within the class structure and "some class fluidity," but they "accepted the reality of classes in urban America." They generally considered two basic groups within society. The upper group

31 Wl. 1 son, City Beautiful, 75.

32 Ibid . 45

consisted of the owners and managers of "substantial enterprises," while the lower group was made up of "manual and nonmanual workers and their families." Generally speaking, those who supported this interpretation of class

judged that those people who owned property "subject to taxation," had experience in business, and had undergone the rigors of education had "special qualifications" for holding municipal office and being represented in the government and 33 thus comprised the upper class.

The ideologues reasoned that both socioeconomic groups would benefit from civic improvements. The upper group would profit "through a general increase in monetary values and ease of living." They would then "assume the obligations of class leadership." At the same time the lower group was "oppressively citybound, " because they could not afford vacations, suburban homes, or any relief from the urban squalor, like the upper class could. Therefore, the common workers would especially benefit from the relief and diversion offered by recreational facilites such as parks, playgrounds, public baths, baseball diamonds, and tennis 34 courts.

33 Ibid., 84-85; Glaab and Brown, Urban America, 219- 220.

34Wilson, City Beautiful, 84-85. 46

Frederick Law Olmsted himself emphasized the social cohesiveness of a park. Although he also "argued for the tangible monetary returns from beauty," the social aspect was

"a higher priority" for him. He accentuated the "park's role as a meeting and greeting area, the locale of class reconciliation." He believed that parks offered a peaceful place in which members of different socioeconomic classes could meet and enjoy the pleasures of the park together. 35

In forming the ideology of the City Beautiful, proponents of the movement employed the rhetoric of public government, as the leaders for municipal reform were doing, by stressing the enlightened atmosphere within a beautiful park and its ability to uplift the common people's spirit and improve their well-being. In a general sense, the movement

"hoped that by bettering the quality of life of the average city dweller, it might improve the dweller himself." After all, the wealthy people had always had their "art treasures, their superb buildings, even their private enclaves of nature." Advocates of the City Beautiful wanted these items for everyone, thus ensuring that the laboring class would become more refined. 36

35 Ibid., 3l.

36Kahn, Imperial San Francisco, 75-76. 47

This concern for the lower class, or attempt to control them, was evident in a report published in 1893 by the Board of Park and Boulevard Commissioners of Kansas City,

Missouri. They first noted that a successful businessman would choose to live in a pleasurable place rather than right next to his business. Furthermore, his desire for pleasure and comfort would increase as he became more successful in his business. Men such as these comprised the "capitalist class of cities, that class to whose experience, ability and means the building up of a city is always largely due." The

Commissioners' report noted, however, that citizens from classes other than the "capitalist" also preferred "agreeable and pleasant surroundings." The upper-class people who governed the city, therefore, had a duty to provide the working class with parks as places of refuge from their rough lives. The Commissioners made the following impassioned argument:

There stands out boldly the claim also of those who are not able to select their place of resi­ dence, and whose opportunity to temper the daily recurring struggle for existence with a reason­ able modicum of rational enjoyment and recreation depends upon the wisdom, not less than upon the humanity, of those who influence and direct the policy of the government of a city, and of those . 37 t h at govern It.

37 Report of the Board of Park and Boulevard Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri (Kansas City: n.p., 1893), 9-15 in The American City: A Documentary History, ed. 48

This gallant spirit of the upper-class leaders working for the benefit of the lower class permeated the pronouncements of the City Beautiful movement. Although many of the movement's supporters and other progressive citizens felt this responsibility and honestly worked to improve the lives of their fellow citizens, the business leaders attempting to wrest control of the city governments from the lower- and middle-class citizens also used this rhetoric to appease the masses and to persuade them to vote for the proposed beautification plans. Thus the appeals became overused in the obligatory wooing of cities' voters to approve the necessary financing for vast civic improvements.

The elite of the city depended on the voters to support their City Beautiful programs by approving financial support, often through bonds. Therefore, the advocates of a plan dared not ignore "the democratic process or neighborhood or community concerns." Usually the plans were too vast to be completed without further approval of the voters for more financing or land acquisition. Therefore, each phase of the project had to gain popular approval so the citizens would ratify the next step.38

Charles N. Glaab (Homewood: The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1963), 259.

38Wilson, City Beautiful, 76-77. 49

Because of the need for the voters' approval, the relationship between the city leaders and common voters was

"not authoritarian or undemocratic but reciprocal." As a result, the "interclass arguments over park facilities" could be seen partly as "elite capitulations to the necessity of continued popular support." The interclass concerns could also be viewed as "neighborhood or community struggle against central control,"39 proposed by the business leaders of the cities.

The necessary attempt to persuade the laboring class that the parks were for their benefit sometimes succeeded but oftentimes did not. The "usual associations of the moral and political reformers were upper-class, native American, and

Protestant." They "rarely" drew support from the cities' lower classes, "many of whom were, of course, immigrants and

Catholics." As a result, "in city after city" the upper- class reformers found "most of their voting support in the 40 wealthier wards and very little of it in the poor wards."

The ideas concerning people in different socioeconomic classes, however, were only one facet of the comprehensive City Beautiful ideology that gradually developed. Early ideas of the park and boulevard movement

39 Ibid .

40Glaab and Brown, Urban America, 213,218. 50

finally culminated in an ideology expressed by the City

Beautiful movement in 1904. Olmsted helped formulate some of

the City Beautiful concepts when he noted a few of the

positive attributes of Central Park, his creation in New York

City. Emphasizing the beneficial influence of the park on

society, he asserted that many gentlemen and families visited

the park often, and that, contrary to many critics' fears, no

ruffians or criminals loitered in the park at all. In fact, he argued that the park exercised "a distinctly harmonizing

and refining influence upon the most unfortunate and most

lawless classes of the city." This influence was "favorable to courtesy, self-control, and temperance." Not only did the park soothe the people within its boundaries, but it also performed the admirable task of luring people out of the 41 saloons and into the park itself.

Olmsted also wrote of the aid the park's environment gave to people who were recovering from a serious illness.

He noted that it was "beginning to be understood" that when patients spent "a few hours a day" enjoying the park that they convalesced much more rapidly than before. Recognizing that many opponents to the park system placed great

importance on the economics of the city, Olmsted pointed out

41Frederick Law Olmsted, Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns (Cambridge: Riverside Press, 1870; reprint, New York: Arno Press, 1970), 32-34 (page references are to reprint edition) . 51

that the patients who healed quickly could thus return "with safety to their ordinary occupations" sooner and add to the

"productive labor of the city. ,,42

Olmsted noted further that Central Park was attractive to visitors and, as a result, the city benefited from the increase in tourism. Not only did New York City make money from the rise in tourism, but it also profited by the tremendous gain in real estate value of the properties immediately bordering the park. Olmsted pointed out that the land around the park increased in value two hundred percent a year. 43

City planners and their supporters used many arguments to justify the expense and work needed to implement civic improvements on a large scale. Olmsted, in his report to San Francisco in 1868, "invoked" the idea of "interurban competition." A city had to have parks and boulevards

"because other cities had them." Twenty-five years later, the Board of Park and Boulevard Commissioners of Kansas City,

Missouri, further developed that idea:

If, in addition to showing our visitors business advantages and facilites, we could in the future show a beautiful city, show in our open squares, our boulevards and parks that we pay due atten­ tion to the comfort and happiness of our people and possess rare opportunites of enjoyment, who

42 Ibid., 32.

43 Ibid., 34. 52

can doubt that we would not only largely increase the respect for the enterprise of our city, but that by possessing a city head and shoulders above all cities for a great distance about us, in beauty, a city in which it would be pleasant and agreeable to live, we would add a powerful attraction that would never cease to draw our neighbors,and with them would bring their 44 trade.

The Park and Boulevard Commissioners of Kansas City,

Missouri, also used the common assertion that increasing their citizens' pride in the community would also benefit the city. They wrote that the municipal government had a "duty" to its citizens to embellish the city, making it "beautiful to the eye, and a delightful place of residence." By completing their "duty," however, they recognized that they would "create" among the townspeople "warm attachments to the city," and would "promote civic pride." This additional civic pride among the citizenry would benefit Kansas City by

"supplementing and emphasizing [the city's] business advantages and increasing [its] power to draw business and population. "45

City Beautiful advocates also used a variety of other arguments in their zeal for promoting the advantages of parks and boulevards and other civic improvements. They pointed

44Wilson, City Beautiful, 100; Park and Bouleyard Commissioners. Kansas City. Missouri, 258. 45 Park and Boulevard Commissioners. Kansas City. Missouri, 257-58. 53

out that parks "were a refuge for working people, whose contacts with nature made them more productive," an assertion that attempted to appeal to both the employees and the employers. Furthermore, lands for parks had to be purchased while "open spaces were available and before urban expansion raised land prices." Charles Mulford Robinson wrote that the fundamental purpose of a park was that "of relief from the excess artificiality of city life, and from its strain and striving." In his opinion, such relief was "more prominent 46 [and] more necessary" than all other aspects.

By 1904 the proponents of the City Beautiful movement had formed an ideology that would serve them through the next ten years. According to the historian William Wilson, it

"blended earlier planning convictions, such as the psychic importance of natural beauty, with newer notions of evolution and environmentalism." Comprised of ten main points, the

City Beautiful's ideology "effectively suppported planning movements in cities across the United States."47

First of all, the City Beautiful movement's solution to urban problems, "transforming the city into a beautiful, rationalized entity," was "to occur within the existing

46Wilson, City Beautiful, 100; Charles Mulford Robinson, Modern Civic Art. or. The City Made Beautiful, 4th ed. (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1903), 322.

47Wilson, City Beautiful, 95. 54

social, political, and economic arrangements." The movement's advocates were reformers, not rebels seeking to overthrow the cities' current structures. Proponents of the

City Beautiful also "recognized the aesthetic and functional shortcomings" of cities. They viewed cities as ugly, dirty, and unsanitary, therefore they worked to create beautiful buildings to combat the inherent ugliness and filth. Not only would the beautiful buildings improve the cities' physical environment, but the movement's advocates believed beauty could "shape human thought and behavior," as well and change the degradation of the human spirit caused by life in

.. 48 the cltles.

City planners considered more than beauty, however, when formulating their designs for civic improvements. They tried to unite "beauty and utility" by studying cities' transportation, sewerage, lighting, and water problems and proposing solutions. They believed in efficiency; for example, they judged that soot and fly ash were dirty and a waste of resources and thus sought ways to eliminate such problems. 49

As the City Beautiful movement grew from the simpler realm of parks and boulevards, the plans for improving cities

48 Ibid., 78-79.

49 Ibid., 82-83. 55

became increasingly complex. As a result, civic leaders

"sought expertise" in solving urban problems. Once intrigued by the City Beautiful's ideas, city leaders would typically hire an expert to study the city and construct a plan that the sponsoring leaders would then try to sell to the voters. 50

Advocates of the City Beautiful acknowledged the existence of social classes within America's culture. They recognized that some "individual mobility" existed, but believed that people in the various classes remained separate from one another. Their hope, therefore, was that people from different classes would find a common meeting-ground within the refuge of a park. 51

Supporters of the movement passionately embraced the cause of beautifying the cities. This "fervent optimism" was evident in their eagerness to battle the movement's opponents. Their "evangelical confidence" sprang from the

"convictions behind the social, cultural, and ethical outlook of the middle and upper classes," from which most of the advocates and experts came. 52

Two other considerations close Wilson's summary of the City Beautiful's ideology. First, the city planners

50 Ibid., 83.

51 Ibid., 84.

52 Ibid., 85. 56

rediscovered the charm of European cities. They did not view the old-world cities as ancient artifacts that needed to be copied, but as dynamic, thriving, clean, well-administered, and attractive models for the contemporary American cities.

Secondly, the City Beautiful restored civic spirit, the residents' pride in their cities which urged them to improve thelr' communltles0 0 even f urther. 53

The progressive and City Beautiful movements that swept through the United States began on the municipal level and grew until they permeated the state and federal governments also. These movements provided much of the context in which the people of Oakland struggled to improve their city, and thus present valuable insight to understanding the events within Oakland itself. After

Oakland's first forty years, its populace began a more active role in the issues of civic beautification and city planning.

The voters had their first say in the bond election of 1892.

53 Ibid., 85-86. 57

:J ,.,1 rl .~ r- OO rl .~ J U

· ( ~ "0 c: ro rl ~ ro l+-< 0 o >, Cfl

(Photograph courtesy of Oakland Public Library) 59

rr)-:l"E.. Q'". ".( , " PROJECTED .~DUlEVAU

... I • .' '-~==~--Around ~I==::::;---J .'.' > LAKEMERRITT @" ''':.- J. I" : J if-""'1 ' . , ''1:..... ~. J.;. 'G.J ,......

'~~ ... (.~) ,/:; ~ " 17 ~_.-.-rl ,~~j! 1 I : &1. ,.-r--, ~ .. / I'.IlINCIPAl. ~ .. I 'V! I OWNERS ~11- I !.'PROPERTY J ,­ .I#IlUNIl IH! tAKl

.., IIJ,ut'''' r4tlN(' ItUUt'f"W"~!. I L I ~ J .,IIft ..."4.-"'" :. \ 'I I I ,I • I J~. #.AU,..... :1 I $ 1: .I I '" ; ~ (;"'4J If'''''''' I J ('/0 "" 6J1.uaQN I'!:" ~".-.''''''''''''''''''''''~01 •I ~!.:~.:=::•....=:~~.u:~1 ...... J. -.-....-., I 9 I~-;';.;~:c;.",::,,:-::,":r'!!::~ ._r~ ...... ,._ • ...... - f'~ i I 1-" .______.. I . '# ."."_ - .. _6 .J N I "oJ /I ,."('''',,•••• -.·.·..·.11 ....., ,.,./I~"'"'.-- ...... ~•. : ':':',::::.::" , II , . H (3UIU ., "'1 ~'N .,..., ,s ."...... ,. .,...... ;~ 1:;:::;=::;i;'::;~~: =~:...... ~ I '4 ~ '~ ~"." ~. 0,",;.... __,...' ..

,J/ c,. a .. JI ....."'••" ". ,~,.", II J~~ "''''- ~~ "'- ~"'. ,.,."", .'} n"" .. ,..••'0.1) .J~ , ... " ~ ~ ._&"~ "'I"""r' ~~ f ' -, "4''- 011 '43QN AAA_-, 1';\: -/ Vjl ----...... - ...=--,-.- _-'==.7 './" I

( '( 1".

1/210 51" ~~ "'"51 I • ....-.....0 ......

•I.. I I W1."5".~~ II'N.f.uM....~q I Oakland Enquirer .,+ ' : J.9 November 1890 page 1 CHAPTER 3

THE ELECTION OF 1892

Lake Merritt enjoyed few improvements between the

incorporation of the town of Oakland in 1852 and the late

1880s. Individual initiative accounted for the two major projects of the lake, Horace Carpentier's toll bridge in 1853 and Samuel Merritt's dam in 1869. Besides the repairing of the dam in 1878 and the construction of a roadway across the top of it, in 1892 Lake Merritt existed much as it had for the previous twenty years.

The outer boundaries of the lake, still affected by the tides, were principally salt marshes, muddy and smelly, and only partially covered during high tide. Since magnificent homes bordered the lake, it remained inaccessible to the public, except in a few select places. Instead of being a place of beauty, the lake was primarily a nuisance, a hindrance, and a depository of the city's sewage. The historian DeWitt Jones accurately described it as being "far

60 61

from a beauty spot," fit only for "water fowl, bacilli, and

mosquitos. ,,1

People had made various suggestions for projects

concerning Lake Merritt through the years, but the city had

acted on none of them. For instance, Samuel Merritt in 1869

proposed an extensive boulevard circling the lake. Private

landowners began building the boulevard on their own

properties, bearing the costs but also enjoying the benefits

of increased land values. They hoped to make the project a municipal enterprise, since the entire city would benefit

from the boulevard. Others, claiming that the wealthy owners

of property bordering the lake were simply trying to get money from the city, argued that the owners should pay the

entire cost, because they would receive the benefits. In

1878 the city council authorized a boulevard around the lake,

but refused to spend the city's money on the project. 2

The issue of the boulevard was thus postponed for

another ten years, when, in relation to a more serious problem, city leaders resurrected the issue. The initial

impetus for the renewed interest in Lake Merritt was one of

lDeWitt Jones, ed. "Oakland Parks and Playgrounds," typescript (Oakland: The Oakland Parks and Recreation Departments, 1936?), 48.

2Frank K. Mott, "The Creation, History and Development of Lake Merritt," [1936], typewritten, 7; Sandra Sher, "Boulevard Around Lake Merritt: It Took Awhile," The Museum of California (November-December 1987): 22. 62

practical concern rather than noble: the abundance of sewage.

The citizens of Oakland had been operating under a false assumption since the conception of the city. The common theory held that the tidal action through the gates of Lake

Merritt's dam was strong enough to carry garbage and sewage out of the estuary and into the bay. Therefore, people threw their trash into the lake and trusted that the tides would safely dispose of it in the deeper waters of the bay. In

1871 the city also installed a sewer system, "which dumped ninety percent of Oakland's sewage, untreated, into the northern arms of the lake.,,3

The theory proved wrong, however. The marsh lands extended beyond the reach of the usual high tide, and the incoming tide pushed the garbage up onto the marsh where it would lie exposed until the water rose sufficiently to cover it again. Furthermore, the exchange of water in the lake with fresh creek water and new salt water brought in on tides from the bay took much longer than the people thought, and the lake, instead of cleansing itself, became a "giant cesspool." The main sewer system, begun in 1872 and completed in 1875, was also deteriorating and leaking sewage as it crossed the West Oakland marsh located at the end of

West Twenty-second Street (see map page fifty-seven). The

3BiIIO'Brien, "The Restless Shore," Express (29 February 1987): 12. 63

salt marsh's unsightly, malodorous mess forced the people to deal with the problem, for the sewage difficulty advanced from being an ugly nuisance to a hazard to the health of those living nearby.4

Oakland's Board of Health and the newly-created West

Oakland Improvement Association took the initiative in dealing with the sewage problem. The Board of Health's immediate concern was the amount of raw sewage entering Lake

Merritt, while the Improvement Association promoted the cleansing of the salt marshes in its neighborhood. The two agencies were in agreement with their focus on health, the sewerage system, and the resulting proposals to construct a boulevard around Lake Merritt and a park on the marsh. The city council then placed both projects before the voters in a bond election in 1892.

The recurring sewer problem prompted the Oakland

Enquirer to report in February of 1888 that Oakland's Board of Health had been trying for several months "to stop the emptying of sewers into Lake Merritt." People whose houses were near the lake built their sewer lines so they emptied directly into the water. Sanitary Inspector Snook expressed his frustration with residents around the lake refusing to comply with his order to stop such action. One reason for

4Ibid.; Jones, "Oakland Parks," 46. 64

Snook's exasperation was that the board did not have much authority to enjoin such health violations. For example, both District Attorney S. P. Hall and City Attorney James A.

Johnson were unable to locate an ordinance forbidding the practice of emptying sewage into a salt-water body, such as

Lake Merritt. 5

Although it attempted to prohibit the emptying of sewers directly into the lake, the Board of Health also recognized that homeowners had little option, due to the city's insufficient sewerage system. Many of the private homes in Oakland did not have any sewer lines at all. When the city planned to build new sewer lines, some owners of private homes objected because they did not want the underground sewer pipes on their land. 6

In mid-1888, John P. Irish, an influential citizen and editor of the San Francisco Daily Alta California, wrote a public letter complaining about the sewage problem in his neighborhood of West Oakland. He argued that the death rate in the neighborhoods near the marsh was increasing every month due to the noxious sanitation problem of the sewage.

Irish also reminded the public of an earlier proposal for filling in the noxious marshland with soil and making it into

50a k1and EnQuirer, 14 February 1888, 3.

6Ibid., 10 May 1888, 4. 65

a park, while rebuilding the faulty sewer line underground

and extending it further into the bay. Health Officer

Crowley wrote a response to Irish's letter and agreed that the sewerage in Oakland needed improvement. Reciting the

official dogma, he pointed out that the city had insufficient

funds at that time to rectify the problem. Crowley disagreed, however, with Irish's observation that the number of zymotic deaths had increased in the respective neighborhoods. Acknowledging that fumes were escaping from the leaking sewer line, he argued that the smelly gasses were unpleasant, not dangerous, and quickly dissipated in the

fresh sea air. 7

Concern for the city's poor sanitation intensified among the people who lived and worked near Lake Merritt and the West Oakland marsh. In the spring of 1889 the Oakland

Enquirer predicted that probably "the most important, and certainly the most difficult," issue confronting the people of Oakland in 1889 was "that of sewage." In 1889 the citizens residing in West Oakland organized the West Oakland

Improvement Association to work for the cleanliness of the marsh areas in their neighborhood. The main sewer line, completed in 1875, went along Twenty-second Avenue across the marsh to the bay. Along solid ground it was built of brick,

7Ibid., 15 June 1888, 3. 66

but where it crossed the marsh it was made of wood and

located above the ground, since the land was so unstable. As

the sewage line became older, however, the wooden section

became increasingly decrepit, full of cracks and holes

leaking malodorous fumes, and coated with a thick slime that

impeded the flow of the sewage. 8

The marsh's sewerage puzzle remained a constant source

of debate and conjecture for a long time. In the fall of

1891 the city council authorized the expenditure of $1500 for the cleaning and reconstructing of the main lake sewer, a project that only solved the problem temporarily. The West

Oakland Improvement Association, however, embraced the cause of a park covering the filthy marsh and persuaded the council to bring the issue to the voters for approval. 9

A problem also existed on the other end of the main

lake sewer where the tides of Lake Merritt were supposed to

flush the pipes clean twice a day. The silt that had built up in Lake Merritt, however, covered the intake to the sewer

system and prohibited the water from entering to clean it out. The natural accumulation of silt from the creeks

8Ibid., 29 April 1889, 4; Jones, "Oakland Parks," 46; Oakland Enquirer, 15 June 1888, 3.

90a kland, Department of Public Works, Minutes of Meetings, 28 July 1891 - 6 October 1891; Oakland, City Council, Minutes of Meetings, 24 August 1891 - 16 November 1891. 67

entering the lake was gradually making the lake shallower.

The prevailing opinion, therefore, was that the city council should hire someone to dredge the extra mud from the bottom of the lake. The necessity of dredging Lake Merritt and removing the added silt seemed clear and resulted in a refreshing lack of controversy. The problem, however, was deciding what to do with the mud scooped up from the bottom of the lake. The proposed solution, which made it to the ballot, incorporated the placement of mud with the old proposal of a boulevard; fill in the outskirts of the lake with the mud and build a boulevard on top of it.

Government officials had been discussing the notion of issuing bonds to pay for the construction of a park on the

West Oakland marsh and a boulevard around the lake for some time. For instance, in a speech to the city council on April

3, 1888, Mayor Davis spoke of it being time for a

"progressive policy" in the city's affairs. He pledged his support "in the matter of issuing bonds for public improvements," expecially the "long-talked of boulevard" and the "excellent idea" of making a park out of the marsh lands in the western part of the city. Acknowledging some fiscal concerns, he added the condition that the city leaders place the "proper safeguards" around the spending of the public's 68

money, so that people could never accuse them of doing the

work "injudiciously, incompetently or extravagantly."10

Shortly after Mayor Davis' speech, the Oakland

EnQuirer enthusiastically reported that Edson Adams, the son

of one of the original founders of Oakland and an owner of

extensive land around the lake, had made concessions in the

use of his land for a boulevard. As a result, "no

unsurmountable difficulties" existed in the way of the "great

public improvement" of a boulevard and the city council could

begin formulating plans and obtaining estimates "upon which

to provide for the issuance of bonds. ,,11

The council slowly began the lengthy process of

planning the boulevard, a process that culminated on June 3,

1891, when it approved the spending of $19,000 from the

treasury funds for dredging Lake Merritt, building a rock

wall behind which the reclaimed mud would be dumped, and

constructing a boulevard on the newly-made land. Work on the project began several weeks later on July 18 and was

completed before December of that year, thus creating a new

boulevard on the eastern side of the lake between the Twelfth

Street dam and Eighteenth Street. 12

lOOakland EnQuirer, 3 April 1888, 8.

110a kland EnQuirer, 5 April 1888, 8.

12Mott, "The Creation of Lake Merritt," 9; Oakland, City Council Minutes: 1895 City Ordinances and Charter, 253- 69

In the process of paying some bills for the work being

done, however, Oakland's city auditor, Roland W. Snow,

discovered that the city's deed to Lake Merritt was missing.

At first assuming that the deed was simply misplaced, the

city council grew increasingly concerned when they were unable to locate it. The city had originally become the owner of a large portion of the lake in the "complicated

scheme" of 1869, in which Horace Carpentier had deeded his ownership of Oakland's waterfront to the Oakland Waterfront

Company in order to entice the Central Pacific Railroad to choose Oakland as the western terminus of the first transcontinental railroad. Mayor Chapman, therefore,

journeyed across the bay and met with the representatives of the Waterfront Company and the Central Pacific Railroad to discuss the city's acquisition of a new deed. 13

The process of obtaining a new deed stretched out for several months. After two months of uncertainty, City

Auditor Snow refused to pay the contractor's bills for work being done on land that the city possibly did not own.

Although Mayor Chapman had visited the Waterfront Company seven times trying to secure a new deed, the company still had not turned over its title to the property. Recognizing

254; Oakland EnQuirer, 9 November 1891, 5; 1 December 1891, 1.

130akland EnQuirer, 6 August 1891, 1; 7 September, 1891, 5. 70

the unfairness of withholding pay from the workers, the city council instructed Snow to pay the bills for the work that had already been completed. 14

The Oakland Waterfront Company eventually agreed to reissue a deed granting ownership of its claim to Lake

Merritt to the city of Oakland. After bickering about the specifics of the deed, the dispute finally came to a rest when Mayor Chapman submitted a quit claim deed to Oakland's city council on November 16, 1891. Concerned that the city might at some future date fill in the shallow lake and then make a large profit by selling the land, perhaps even to a competing railroad interest, the directors of the Waterfront

Company included several conditions in the deed that stipulated that the city keep the area as a public water park and construct a public boulevard "in and around" the lake.

[see appendix A for the complete wording of the deed]. The total cost to the city for acquiring the quit claim and ownership of the lake was one dollar. 15

If the council intended to create an inspirational example for the voters to study on the eve of the bond election, the $19,000 for the initial boulevard project was misspent. The resulting roadway clearly needed additional

14Ibid., 27 October 1891, 1.

150akland, City Council Minutes, 16 November 1891, 279; Oakland Enquirer, 16 November 1891, 5. 71

work and was more of an eyesore than an inducement for expansion and improvement. People used the project as an example of the council's mismanagement of funds and the contention that any park or boulevard proposal would end up costing much more than the original estimate. The completed venture, therefore, actually hindered the passage of the park and boulevard bonds in the election of 1892.

On September 23, 1891, the city council unanimously passed an ordinance calling for the "acquisition, construction, and completion" of two "permanent municipal improvements": a "public park" in West Oakland and a "public boulevard around Lake Merritt and a public water park within the lines" of the proposed boulevard. Within the same ordinance, though, the councilmembers acknowledged that the cost for the project would be too great "to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue" of Oakland. 16

To meet the high cost of the proposed improvements, the city council authorized a special election in which the voters would decide on the city's issuance of $1,200,000 worth of bonds. Two separate proposals were on the ballot,

$400,000 for improving and building school buildings and

$800,000 for the combined proposal of the park in West

Oakland and the boulevard around Lake Merritt ($400,000

160akland, City Council Minutes, 23 September 1891, 220. 72

each). Oakland already had an outstanding debt of $400,000 in bonds previously issued that would bring the total indebtedness of the city to $1,600,000 if both proposals on the ballot passed. This amount nearly reached the city's legally permitted debt ceiling of $2,000,000, or five percent of its taxable wealth of $40,000,000. 17

The bond issue generated a major and heated controversy among the citizenry and a battle between

Oakland's newspapers. The Oakland Enquirer forcibly opposed the park and boulevard bonds, while the Oakland Tribune led the fight in favor of the bonds. The war between the papers resulted in the publication of numerous arguments concerning the bonds and covering a variety of social, philosophical, economical, moral, labor, practical, and legal issues.

The initial impetus behind the election's park and boulevard bond proposal was the social issue of the city's health needs. Few questioned the need to dredge Lake Merritt since it was necessary to flush out the main lake sewer system; deposits of silt encroached on the sewer line and prevented the water from entering the pipes properly. The

Oakland Tribune reported a few days before the election that the mud was one and one-half inches above the sewer line's

170akland Enquirer, 12 December 1891, 7. 73

intake pipe. In order to work properly, Lake Merritt had to maintain a uniform depth of at least four to five feet. 18

Although the idea of dredging did not provoke controversy, the proposal of building a boulevard on the reclaimed silt did. The dredging project would produce an enormous amount of mud, which had to be disposed of somewhere. Advocates of the boulevard argued that the easiest, most logical place to deposit the silt would be behind stone walls within the outer boundary of the lake and to construct the long-discussed boulevard on top of it.

Engineers would also take the opportunity to build a new lake shore sewer line on the reclaimed property underneath the boulevard, thus improving the sewer system and heeding the objections of property owners who did not want the underground pipes on their property.19

Proponents of the park on the salt marsh in West

Oakland used a similar line of reasoning. Ex-mayor Pierce

(1888) noted that the marsh was "a nuisance and an eyesore to the whole city." Furthermore, it was a "menace to health and a dead weight to property values." He asserted that "all

I80akland Tribune, 29 March 1892, 1.

I9Ibid., 12 March 1892, 2; 29 March 1892, 1. 74

zymotic diseases" were caused by "imperfect sewerage and a neglect of the laws of sanitation. "20

Once again, though, the voters did not question the alleged danger of the marsh to the health of the populace but instead vigorously debated the proposal to build a park on the marsh itself. Like the boulevard, the proposal of making a park out of the infamous marsh had been discussed for a long time. Proponents of the park idea wedded the project to the growing concern for solving the sanitation and health issue. Pierce, for example, argued that the city, while abating the nuisance, could just as well create a park "for the healthy recreation of the people. "21

The Oakland Enquirer, though, published the comments of several Oakland physicians deprecating the suggestion of the park. For instance, Dr. F. H. Pinkerton, the president of Oakland's previous Board of Health, adamantly opposed the park and boulevard bonds. He argued that the city should

"first get rid of the debris" on the marsh and then fix the sewers that deposited the filth. The prior Board of Health, of which he was president, had asked the city council "to improve the condition of the marsh" by stopping the dumping and, instead, burning the garbage in a crematory or towing it

20Ibid., 8 March 1892, 1.

21Ibid. 75

out to sea. The Board of Health under his administration, however, did not contemplate the construction of a park on the marsh, for the solution of the marsh's health hazard did not require such "ornamentation."22

As reflected in Oakland's park controversy in 1892, the conflict of purpose between "beautiful" and "functional" pervaded civic improvement plans across the nation throughout the City Beautiful era. Voters agonized in deciding on the expenditure of huge sums of money for projects described as attractive. How much money should their city spend to make itself pretty? Such philosophical debate ultimately led to the demise of the City Beautiful and the birth of its replacement, the City Practical.

In Oakland, defenders of the park and boulevard projects scorned the critics' contention that attractive improvements made unworthy ventures. Ex-mayor Davis (1887) argued that decorative features did not hinder the practical functions of items. He noted, for example, that a wheat field, although beautiful, still perfomed the practical matter of furnishing bread. A locomotive, "a thing of beautiful construction and finish," also performed its transportations duties well. He placed the park and

220a kland EnQuirer, 25 March 1892, 1. The paper also published the negative comments of Dr. J. R. Broadway and Dr. Albert H. Pratt. 76

boulevard in the category of beautiful, yet functional, improvements. 23

Going beyond Davis's argument of equating beauty and function, Pierce compared the attractiveness of businesses with the beauty of a city. Arguing that it paid a business to be "clean and stylish" and noting that businesses profited from fine buildings and alluring store windows, he pledged that attractions, like the boulevard around the lake, would bring people to Oakland, where they would "spend money at the livery stables, and patronize eating houses and refreshment saloons." Furthermore, visitors would "carry abroad" stories of Oakland's "beautiful drive around the lake, its pretty park in West Oakland and its fine school buildings, and its excellent sanitary conditions" and would give the city the enviable reputation of beauty.24

Critics of the park and boulevard projects were not content with the bond supporters' general assurances, and they pointed out the grim reality of inefficient or nonexistent municipal services. Expressing his frustration with the inadequate water service to his neighborhood in East

Oakland and lack of proper street lighting, Pinkerton, one of the more outspoken critics of the bond proposals, demanded

230akland Tribune, 8 March 1892, 1.

24rbid. 77

that the city first improve such essential services before spending the money for the ornamentation of a park and boulevard. Charles Cornberger, a commercial painter, argued that the water and sewer problem was of more importance than the park and boulevard proposal and thus deserved the municipal leaders' primary attention. 25

Furthermore, opponents of the bonds noted that since the times of Horace Carpentier and Samuel Merritt, concerned citizens had personally financed neighborhood improvement projects from which they benefited. For instance, Pinkerton complained about the numerous assessments that he had already paid: $435 for the Commerce Street sewer, $880 for the

Thirteenth Avenue sewer, over $500 for grading and macadamizing streets, and $200 for the construction of a sidewalk. Since nobody "voted bonds" for his neighborhood's benefit, he and others questioned the necessity of the entire city paying for improvements that affected only certain sections of the municipality. This struggle over

250akland EnQuirer, 1 April 1892, 1; Oakland, like many other cities of that time, did not own its own water enterprise. The inadequate water service frustrated many voters and continued causing a detrimental effect on the attempts to create the park and boulevard. The city finally solved the water problem in 1909 during the administration of Mayor Frank K. Mott. 78

responsiblity for payment permeated the debates about plans for civic improvements. 26

Defenders of the bonds disagreed with what they believed to be a pessimistic, selfish attitude expressed by the bonds' detractors, like Pinkerton. Davis, for example, took the moral high ground by arguing that he "ought to be taxed to help the others and to contribute to the happiness of people," whether he knew them or not. He expressed his disappointment that "private enterprise" was responsible for all the accomplishments of the city through payment of

"district or local assessments," not by "municipal taxation."

The city of Oakland had not yet undertaken a single project, like building a bridge or laying down a sewer, as a united city. Therefore, he urged the voters to "take hold . and do something as a municipality. ,,27

Davis, however, was proposing the relatively new concept of the citizens' responsibility to the city at large rather than only the particular section in which they lived.

Many voters who did not live near the proposed civic improvements favored the traditional method of financing, that of the people directly prospering from the project paying for it. The editors of the Oakland Enquirer forcibly

260akland Tribune, 25 March 1892, 1.

27Ibid., 8 March 1892, 1. 79

argued that point. They noted that when streets were opened or widened the cost was "assessed on the property benefited thereby," and as much as possible, the expense was

"distributed in proportion to the benefits accruing to the respective property owners." The editors asserted that the city should apply the same method "to the making of boulevards and parks, so as to cover at least a part of their cost by assessment on the property most largely benefited. "28

Carrying the point a bit further, the editors acknowledged that the "strongest arguments" in favor of the projects were that the "assessable value of property adjacent to the proposed improvements" would be "so largely augmented that the rate of taxation" would not actually increase.

Agreeing that the experience in other cities showed that the property alongside boulevards and parks "increased in value many fold," the editors maintained that the property owners who profited from such enormous increases should bear the burden of the cost of the project. 29

Of course the defenders of the bonds disagreed with such reasoning. They argued that the increased valuation in property would benefit the entire city by creating a larger tax base and naturally bringing in more money throughout the

280akland EnQuirer, 31 March 1892, 1.

29Ibid. 80

life of the bonds. Furthermore, they confidently projected a large population increase when the finished improvements would motivate people to move into the city. As the years passed, the anticipated growth in population would spread out the responsiblity of payment for the $1,200,000 worth of bonds on more people and ease the tax burden on individual citizens. 3o

Opponents to the proposed park and boulevard bonds, like Dr. Pinkerton, also argued that once the projects were begun, the city would demand more money from the voters, since the cost estimates were, in actuality, probably too low. Once the supporters of the bonds successfully began their ambitious task, Pinkerton feared that the taxpayers would "have to come down with the coin to finish it," regardless of the expense. 31

Pinkerton's fears were symptomatic of a larger problem in the community, pervasive mistrust of Oakland's city council. Proponents of the City Beautiful movement faced this common dilemma in planning civic improvements throughout the nation. In effect, civic leaders were asking the voters to entrust them with large amounts of money to be spent on specified projects. Many people were reluctant to do so.

300akland Tribune, 8 March 1892, 1.

310akland EnQuirer, 25 March 1892, 1. 81

Oakland's council beseeched the voters to grant them

$1,200,000 for construction of schools, a boulevard, and a park. Many of the citizens did not trust the civic leaders to spend the money competently and honestly. The accusations of incompetence and dishonesty of the council would have a detrimental effect on future elections as well.

Critics of the park and boulevard bonds derided

Oakland's council for past decisions that proved to the bonds' detractors the council's inability to make decisions that would benefit the city. For example, DeWitt C. Gaskill, who lived only one block from the lake on the corner of

Harrison and Durant streets, charged that the council and board of works had "not been doing their duty" and were "not competent men." As an example of his contention, he noted the "folly" on the east side of the lake where approximately

$20,000 had been spent on the construction of a boulevard with no result except "to ruin the lake and squander the city's money."32

Edward C. Williams, captain of the schooner ~, spoke at an anti-bond rally and asserted that the city council had

"done nothing to induce people to have confidence in it." He recited a list of the council's past actions that he felt supported his argument, including the contention that the

32Ibid., 30 March 1892, 1. 82

council had overruled the efforts of the "good people of

Oakland" who tried to keep the "pool room people from securing a lodgement" in Oakland "after being kicked out of

San Francisco. ,,33

Ex-Governor George C. Perkins (1880-1884) acknowledged that Oakland's council "did not act as I and others would have had them do" concerning the "moral question" of allowing the disputed pool room to establish itself in Oakland. Yet he argued that the decision the councilmembers made did not

"necessarily" indicate that they were "a dishonest set of men," or that they would "rob the treasury." Perkins noted that if the members of the council had "not done their duty," then the voters could "retire them at the next election" and elect other men who were "believed to be honest." The ex­ governor, however, related his opinion that the question of the park and boulevard bonds, which was "a material question," should not be "linked" with the controversial decision about the pool room, which was "a question of morals. ,,34

Oakland's ex-mayor Pierce hesitantly defended the councilmembers by contending that the issue of their competence and honesty was not pertinent to the matter of

33Ibid., 1 April 1892, 1.

340akland Tribune, 9 March 1892, 1. 83

bonds. He noted that he had not "approved" of all the decisions the council had done, yet he believed that it had done a "great deal to merit commendation." Even if the council had done "improper things," Pierce argued that such actions had no bearing on deciding the good proposals, like the bonds. He shared his opinion that the council had shown a "very progressive spirit," and, in "personal character and intelligence," challenged "comparison with its predecessors. ,,35

In his advocacy for the park and boulevard bonds,

Pierce utilized another argument that would also become a factor in the future elections for civic improvement bonds.

Supporters for the proposals strenuously appealed to the interests of the skeptical laboring class, who generally resented the increased taxes necessary for ornamental projects such as parks and boulevards. Pierce confidently asserted that the project would benefit the working men of the city by putting "a large number of men to work" and placing "in local circulation a large sum of money drawn from the outside." According to this scenario, that influx of money would "go into the hands of contractors and laborers,

35Ibid., 8 March 1892, 1. 84

and from them would percolate through every branch of local trade," thus benefiting the "general welfare" of the city.36

William G. Henshaw, described by the Oakland Tribune as "one of Oakland's foremost and most successful young business men," invoked his observations from a recent trip to

Europe to assure Oakland's working class that the park and boulevard would not be just a rich man's playground. He contended that cities in Europe had "become famous for their parks and boulevards, and in all of them it [was] the poor classes who [thronged] these resorts." Using the Champs

Elysees in Paris as an example, he asserted that a "few wealthy men" drove along it, but it was "the poor who

[crowded] the walks under the trees to see the world go by."3?

The editors of the Oakland Enquirer, on the other hand, sneered at such optimistic appraisals and derided the attempts to woo the working men. In a passionate editorial they attacked the purported relationship between the laboring class and parks in Europe:

If taxation for public luxury benefits the laboring man, his condition ought to be blessed in portions of Europe where he has been compelled to moisten the soil of a thousand magnificent parks with the blood of himself and children, and where he has been compelled to work his bone and muscle and brain into splended public buildings.

36Ibid.

3?Ibid., 9 March 1892, 1. 85

The editors claimed that the laboring class escaped such tribulations in Europe in their desire to own "a modest home in America, without the parks and splendid public improvements." If the park and boulevard bonds would

"benefit anybody," the writers confidently protested that it would "not be the laborers. "38

Jerry Dunn, a carpenter, brought the argument back to the question of the council's honesty when he "vigorously" attacked the notion of the working men being "enriched" by the passage of the bonds. If the bonds did pass, he argued,

"half" of the $1,200,000 would "most likely go into the pockets of political robbers" who were "already quarreling about the disposing of it in regard to commissions and future bids and contracts. "39

Amidst the park critics' accusations of fraud and questions of taxation, benefits, and necessity of the proposed park and boulevard, lurked a persistent notion that rankled the supporters of the civic improvement proposals, the comparison of Oakland to other cities, particularly San

Francisco. Frustrated advocates of the park and boulevard deplored the neglect of Lake Merritt and the West Oakland

380akland EnQuirer, 1 April 1892, 4.

39Ibid., 1. 86

marsh when the city across the bay had created a beautiful park out of barren sand dunes.

In the spring of 1870 San Francisco began wresting a park out of the hostile land. They began their project despite the earlier negative report of the noted landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted. After visiting the proposed site, Olmsted reported that, in his opinion, it "would not be wise nor safe to undertake to form a park upon any plan which assumed as a certainty that trees which would delight the eye

[could] be made to grow near San Francisco." He did not find any hope of ever creating a beautiful park in that location.

Nevertheless, after the city committed a great deal of hard work and expense to the effort of forging a park, Olmsted, eleven years after making his initial statement, "cheerfully admitted his mistake. "40

With San Francisco's tremendous success against much opposition by both land and voters, supporters of Oakland's civic improvement projects were quick to express their frustration with critics of the proposals. One of these critics, for example, was Dr. T. C. Coxhead, an outspoken opponent of the park and boulevard bonds, who included among other criticisms the contention that a park could "never be

40Raymond H. Clary, The Making of Golden Gate Park: 1865-1906 (San Francisco: Don't Call It Frisco Press, 1980), 2 . 87

made of the marsh," and it was "preposterous to try to build one there." The notion that trees would not grow in the West

Oakland marsh also circulated amongst the bonds' detractors.

In response to a reporter's query about the impossibility of creating a park on the marsh, Pierce exploded with his opinion that the notion was "rubbish!" He pointed out that

"trees and grass and flowers" grew all around that area,

"even in the very borders of the marsh." Impressed with the success of San Francisco's Golden Gate Park, he remembered that when the city first began planning the park twenty years ago, "men gravely argued in the newspapers that a park could never be created on those sand dunes." Now, he observed,

"what a thing of beauty" San Francisco had. 41

In a final effort to defeat the park and boulevard bonds, the Oakland EnQuirer argued that the boulevard proposition was "positively and unequivocally illegal." From such worthwhile interpretations of philosophy, economics, and practicality, the argument between supporters and detractors of the bonds deteriorated in this instance into analyzing the nuances of the wording within several legal documents.

Although playing a minor role in the debate, the controversy nevertheless made headlines in the EnQuirer's attempt to

410akland EnQuirer, 25 March 1892, 1; Oakland Tribune, 8 March 1892, 1. 88

forestall the bonds. 42 The newspaper maintained that the deed obtained by Mayor Chapman from the Waterfront Company had given Oakland ownership to most of Lake Merritt, but not all.

The state had granted the city possession of the rest of the

lake, primarily the two northern arms, in 1874. The En~uirer argued that the plan for the boulevard did not comply with the stipulations of the 1874 deed (see appendix B for the complete document). Furthermore, in November of 1890 civic leaders had signed an agreement with owners of property bordering the lake in which the two groups agreed on the construction of the boulevard circling the lake (see appendix

C for the entire agreement). The En~uirer compared the two legal documents and determined that the one in 1890 "clearly" violated the provisions of the one in 1874.

The plan for building the boulevard was to fill in the outer boundary of water with silt from the dredging. This action, according to the Enquirer, would violate the part of the 1874 deed from the state, which stipulated that the land was "granted to the City of Oakland, in trust, for the use of the people thereof, and of the people of the state, as a water park." The property had to be used as a water park, and the En~uirer contended that "to fill up a part of the lake in order to make a boulevard [was] not preserving it for

420akland Enquirer, 25 March 1892, 1. 89

a water park and [was] therefore a violation of the law."

The Enquirer reasoned that "no one would contend that the city could run an ordinary street through the part of the lake received under the act of 1874," and a boulevard was similar to a street "except in width and manner of construction. ,,43

Ex-mayor Davis accepted the challenge and answered the charges brought by the Enquirer. He interpreted the provision from the agreement of 1874 a bit differently by emphasizing words other than "water park." Davis noted that the agreement said the land was "'hereby granted to the city of Oakland, in trust for the ~ of the people thereof . as a water P.aJ:k. '" In an interesting argument of semantics,

Davis contended that the goal of the agreement was the lands'

"J.J...S..e, not that the water lands should remain as they then were, but be used." How were the lands to be used? In answer he stressed the word "as," for the provision stipulated "as. a water park." In "plain English" then, the agreement said the state gave Oakland the water lots so that the city could "~ (and thus enjoy) them as. a water P.aJ:k."

The deed did "not say as a lake, or as an undisturbed sheet of water merely, but as a water ~." Davis concluded by

43Ibid. 90

noting that "a water I2-ad [had] to have a shore and [had] to be accessible to be ~. "44

The Oakland Enquirer, in rebuttal, calculated that the boulevard would displace twenty-four out of the fifty-five acres of water in the disputed area of the northern arms of the lake. To the opponents of the bonds, that amount seemed

large enough to violate the provision of "a water park." The paper also leaped at Davis's imprecision when he spoke of a water park needing to have "a shore" rather than saying "a defined shore." The Enquirer sarcastically reminded Davis that "nature [had] kindly provided [a shore] without the need of municipal action. Nature is never so unthoughtful as to make a lake without a shore to it."45

The Oakland Enquirer discovered another "illegal" action within the boulevard proposal by comparing the agreement of 1890 between the city and property owners with the original deed from 1874. The boulevard lines were planned "upon gradual curves, so that the space between the inner and outer lines occasionally [included] small points and tongues of land jutting into the lake." In other places there were "indentations of the shore where the water, in

44Ibid., 30 March 1892, 1.

45Ibid. 91

small coves and inlets, [extended] outside the outer line of the boulevard and [ran] into the land adjacent."46

The city council and property owners agreed in 1890 to

"an exchange of property," where the city would take the little portions of dry land on the inside of the proposed boulevard and the property owners would possess the water on the outside of the boulevard. The illegality was found in the provision of the deed of 1874 where the state forbade the city the authority to convey possession of any part of the water to a different party. If Oakland did "attempt to convey, incumber, lease or grant any use" of the property, the land would "revert to the people of the State," and the attorney-general could "bring an action to enforce a reconveyance" of the land to the state. 47

In response to a reporter's questioning, Davis again answered the charge of illegality. He argued that the city had not yet attempted to convey any property and was not yet threatened by that technical interpretation of the law. If, however, the state found that Oakland did convey land without the proper authority to do so, then the agreement of 1890 would simply be declared void with no harm done. Davis also contended that even if the city did violate the law, the

46Ibid., 25 March 1892, 1.

47Ibid. 92

attorney general would not bring a suit against the city for

repossession of the property. The EnQuirer, of course,

scoffed at Davis's assumption with the observation that

Oakland "would be left dependent for its lake upon the mere neglect or good nature of the Attorney General! "48

Election day finally arrived. According to law, a bond issue required a two-thirds majority for passage of the bond. The bonds for schools passed by a large margin with

4907 votes in favor and only 1315 votes against. The park and boulevard bonds, however, failed to get even a simple majority, with 3099 votes for the bonds and 3297 votes against. 49

Although the supporters of the park and boulevard bonds had failed in persuading the necessary voters to approve their proposal, they succeeded in instigating a heated and lengthy debate over the merits of the idea and got many people to consider seriously the concept of civic improvement. Unwilling to accept meekly the loss of their cause, they waited a few years until they felt that the time was correct for trying again.

48Ibid., 30 March 1892, 1.

490akland, California, City Council Minutes, book 0, 411-412. \

• Ill""or $A" r1l..... C••'O • & • . ~ • ..

Oakland, 1893

Charles Wollenberg, Golden Gate Metropolis: Perspective on Ba¥ Area Histor¥,

(Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, 1985), 1.0 126. LV CHAPTER 4

THE BOND ELECTION OF 1898

Oakland's city council began planning to hold another bond election at a meeting on August 15, 1898. They considered an ordinance calling for an election "to vote upon the issuance of $320,000 bonds to purchase a part of the

Adams point property and provide for park improvements in

East and West Oakland." They later set the date for the election for October 29, 1898. Initially, the announcement caused little reaction from the town's citizens, for it was overshadowed by a different ordinance passed at the same meeting, one "providing for the appropriation of $80,000 to pay for dredging and otherwise improving Lake Merritt." An impressive army of supporters for the dredging project attended the city council's meeting to speak in favor of the project. A large delegation from the Lake Merritt

Improvement Club was present, as well as, in response to their invitation, United States Senator George C. Perkins. 1

lOakland EnQuirer, 16 August 1898, 6.

94 95

Senator Perkins was the first person to speak about the proposed dredging ordinance. He utilized several arguments favoring the dredging, several of which were consistent with the themes of the City Beautiful movement.

Perkins invoked the argument of interurban rivalry when he referred to Oakland's fame throughout the nation and the need to "keep up that reputation." He argued that Oakland should beautify the Lake Merritt, for other "cities made good use of such natural advantages" in their towns. Also, aware of the possible sectional rivalries within a growing city, Perkins assured the council members that the improvement of Lake

Merritt would "benefit the whole city." The senator also asserted that the "chief reason" for dredging Lake Merritt was "to better the sanitary conditions of the city." The improvement of the lake was therefore "a necessity from a sanitary standpoint." He pointed out that sanitary regulations existed even on the high seas, therefore no

"cesspool" should exist in the middle of the city. He closed his comments by repeating his expectation that the city council would not only pass the ordinance, but pass it 2 unanlmous01y.

After Senator Perkins' speech, several councilmembers affirmed their support for the dredging project and gave 96

their personal testimonies about its importance. For

instance, Councilman Cuvellier stated that he had made "a

tour of investigation of the lake" and recognized "a great

necessity for the dredging." As an example of the lake's

filthiness, he told of a turtle that had died immediately

after being placed in the lake. Councilman Girard remarked

that he had "never voted for any ordinance with so much pleasure" as this one. After such assurances from its members, the council unanimously passed the ordinance of the dredging project to print "amid much applause from the

lmprovers• present. ,' 3

The citizens of Oakland clearly recognized the need

for cleaning Lake Merritt. From the time of the first

settlements along the lake's shore, the sanitary condition of

Lake Merritt and its surrounding area had been deteriorating.

No adequate sewage system existed within the city and a great deal of garbage ended up within the lake or the surrounding marshes. Dr. James P. Dunn, Oakland's Health Officer, vigorously campaigned for cleaning up the lake, and he became

incensed when an article printed in the San Francisco Call on

October 17, 1898, quoted him as saying that the lake was clean and not a health hazard. 97

Dunn promptly responded with a letter published in the Oakland Tribune claiming that he was misquoted.

Reminding people of his previous terms of office, he stated,

"My stand on [the health hazards of Lake Merritt] should be well known inasmuch as repeatedly during my terms as Health

Officer in '91 and '93, I urged time and again that the lake be dredged, in order to better its unsanitary condition." In fact, Dunn was more convinced than ever "of the absolute need for the dredging of the lake and the abating of these marsh land nuisances." He then bolstered his argument by citing the high number of cases of "either diptheria, typhoid, scarlet, or typhomalaria," which he attributed to the

"unsanitary condition of the lake.,,4

The Oakland Tribune agreed with Dunn's assessment and anticipated the end of the dredging project, when the "death­ dealing germs from Lake Merritt [would] be banished and the unsanitary condition of this city [would] be no more." Not only would the dredging result in the absence of disease­ causing germs, but the paper predicted that "from a pestilential spot of the present, will arise a beautiful breathing space, where citizens can enjoy the works of

40akland Tribune, 19 October 1898, 8. 98

nature, which have been so bountifully bestowed upon this

section. "5

A civic organization contributed to the plans for

improving Lake Merritt and its surrounding areas by giving to the city twenty acres of land adjoining the lake. At the

same council meeting on August 15, 1898, when the council approved the dredging project and agreed on an election to decide on bonds, Councilman Pringle announced an amazing offer. Several gentlemen "interested in the improvement of

Lake Merritt" offered to buy "the water front land between

Twelfth and Eighth streets adjacent to Lake Merritt" so that the silt from the lake could be dumped there. Furthermore, the "gentlemen would then deed the land to the city."6

The gentlemen making that generous offer were from the Peralta Heights Improvement Club. They had an option on the land for the "very low" price of $5000. The owners of the land, the Oakland Waterfront Company, owned in part by the Southern Pacific Company, which controlled the Central

Pacific Railroad, had agreed with that selling price "with the understanding that eventually a park would be the outcome, but more especially because the crying necessity of

5 Ibid., 17 October 1898, 1.

60akland En~uirer, 16 August 1898, 6. 99

abating the lake nuisances [was] so apparent to those who

[lived] in the vicinity. ,,7

The Lake Merritt Sanitary and Improvement Club also got involved when it presented a plan to use the silt from the dredging to fill the marshes around the lake. At a meeting of the Board of Public Works on October 7, 1898, the

Lake Merritt Club described its proposal that the company doing the dredging fill in the twenty acres of "marsh lying south of the Twelfth street dam and north of the Eighth street bridge." The company would also "convert the twenty­ eight and one-half acres of marsh which the city owns above the east arm of the lake ... into valuable land, by filling in with the remainder of the mud." Any mud left over would be dumped on "nine acres, owned by citizens on the other side of the lake." 8

At a later meeting of the Board of Public Works, W.

A. Todd, representing the Peralta Heights Improvement Club,

"formally offered the city the strip of land between Eighth and Twelfth streets." In response to Mayor Thomas' query

Todd assured the board that the club would donate the land to the city and that Oakland would not have to pay any expense.

Several other citizens also attended the meeting and spoke in

70akland Tribune, 8 October 1898, 1.

8 Ibid . 100

favor of accepting the gift. Ira Bishop, once again

representing his interests in West Oakland, referred to City

Engineer Chement's information that "fifteen miles of sewer

[emptied] between Eighth and Twelfth streets" and had been dumping sewage there for years. He noted that the city could

"remove the sewer to the estuary and then pump the mud onto this disease hole [and] bury the germs so deep that a beautiful park [could] smile above them.,,9

The Board of Public Works and the city council easily decided to accept the gift of land and incorporate it into its plans for improving Lake Merritt and its surrounding area. At the council meeting on November 2, 1898, the

Oakland Waterfront Company presented the deed to the property

"of the north arm of the estuary between Twelfth and Eighth street" to the city. The council members unanimously

(Councilman Upton was absent) accepted the offer and then passed a resolution thanking the Peralta Heights Improvement

Club for the gift of land, which would, "in the near future, be transformed into a beautiful park."IO

The bidding and planning process was completed on

November 10, 1898, when Mayor Thomas, on behalf of the city of Oakland, signed a contract with the firm of Johnson and

9Ibid., 17 October 1898, 1-2.

IOIbid., 3 November 1898, 8. 101

Peterson for the work. The contract specified that the

company dredge Lake Merritt to a depth of four feet and use

the silt to fill in the area of the proposed park between

Eighth and Twelfth streets on the north arm of the estuary.

The company agreed to finish the project by June 30 of the

following year. 11

While pursuing the completion of the dredging project

by accepting bids from various companies for the work

involved, the council also had to struggle with the practical matter of financing the $80,000 project. According to a law passed March 19, 1889, the city of Oakland had the authority to pass a special tax levy, in addition to the annual

assessment, for money with which to acquire, maintain, or

improve public parks or boulevards. The members of the city

council utilized that ordinance to raise the necessary money

for the dredging project. While doing so, they wrestled with the conflict between the problems of necessary improvements to Lake Merritt versus the higher tax rate that the special

levy would cause. 12

At a meeting held on October 3, 1898, the

councilmembers debated a tax of $1.21 for every $100 worth of property, allocating it to a variety of funds for the city,

lIIbid., 11 November 1898, 2.

12 Ibid., 8 October 1898, 3. 102

e.g., fire, police, streets, salaries, and sewers.

Councilman Girard, the owner of a piano company serving his

first of two successive terms on the city council, vigorously attacked the proposed tax levy by using four main arguments.

He strongly believed that the money allocated for improving

Lake Merritt and the East Side sewer would prevent other departments from functioning at their current levels due to

lack of funds. For example, he asserted that the high school and grammar schools would have to close for a while, the streets would not be sprinkled and cleaned, and the public

library and reading rooms would have to close as a result of the misappropriation of funds. He questioned the need for the $30,000 allotted for improvements to the East Side sewer, and proposed that the cost of dredging be split between two fiscal years instead of one in order to make the cost easier to bear. 13

Finally, Girard warned the Lake Merritt Improvement

Club that it "should not ask for too much or it [would] get nothing. Too high taxes keep people from coming here." He incorporated two arguments into his warning to the

Improvement Club: the public's natural abhorrence to heavy taxes and the idea of interurban rivalry. Advocates of the

City Beautiful movement had maintained that a city had to

13 Ibid., 4 October 1898, 8. 103

make itself beautiful in order to keep its citizens from

escaping to other, more attractive cities. Girard, however,

argued that the high taxes necessary for beautifying projects

would, in fact, drive people away to cities with lower tax

rates. 14

Councilman Woodward, on the other hand, adamantly

supported the tax levy in a lengthy speech given at the

council meeting. Mayor Thomas had appointed Woodward, a

realtor, to the council to represent the fifth ward after A.

Fibush resigned in February 1898. In answering Girard's

criticisms of the tax levy, Woodward employed the interuban

rivalry argument that prevailed among proponents of the City

Beautiful movement when he presented a hypothetical situation as his point of comparison. If Los Angeles "could possess

Lake Merritt within its boundaries as a public water park," he predicted, it would "give $5,000,000 for its ownership and would expend half as much more to beautify the same." Los

Angeles would definitely not allow its board of health to declare its lake "a public nuisance, a menace to the health of her citizens, a cesspool of corruption, breeding

14 Ibid . 104

pestilence and disease" that affect the inhabitants "of the whole city."lS

In direct response to Councilman Girard's proposal to

split the cost of the dredging project over a two-year period, Woodward asserted that the project was simply a

"business proposition" and "would be a great saving to the

city" if the entire project of dredging the lake were "let under one contract" to be finished within the current fiscal year. He strongly believed that the work provided for in the

levy "by the present Council, which has taken up this grand

improvement, ... should not be delegated to a new administration," which might not finish the project. 16

Woodward went on to defend the integrity of the

"public spirited citizens" who had united to eradicate the

filth that made Lake Merritt such a health problem. Offended by accusations that gentlemen "who have expended large sums of money in real estate investments and beautiful homes and private parks, some of which are thrown open to the public

free of charge through liberality," were "schemers to rake the city treasury," Woodward defended the "representative men

lSOakland, California, Elections: 1852 to the Present (Office of the City Clerk: July, 1988), 10; Oakland Tribune, 4 October 1898, 8.

16Oakland Tribune, 4 October 1898, 8. 105

of our city, State, and nation," by calling for the passage of the proposed tax levy. 17

Woodward urged the members of the council to pass the tax proposal and reminded them of the time already spent wrestling with the issue. He noted that the council "had for weeks held almost nightly sessions and labored faithfully" to fix a levy that "would be satisfactory to' all parties interested." Most of the members, Woodward prompted the council, had already agreed with the proposed tax levy, and they should support their past work by approving the levy that night. After the acrimonious debate, a slim majority of the councilmembers heeded Woodward's advice and voted for the

$1.21 tax levy. With only Harrison D. Rowe absent, the council voted six to four for the ordinance. The bill then moved to th e mayor 'ff's 0 lce f or h'lS agreement. 18

Four days after the council's passage of the $1.21 tax levy, Mayor W. R. Thomas met with several of the councilmembers in his office, presented his objections to the bill, and announced his intention to veto it. Thomas argued

18 Ibid.; The vote was as follows: Ayes: Brosnahan Noes: Cuvellier Earl Girard Henneberry Pringle Watkinson Upton Woodward Heitmann Absent: Rowe 106

that the $1.21 tax levy was too small and would force other departments to cope with a lack of necessary funds, an argument that Councilman Girard had previously presented before the council. The mayor submitted a list of all the city's departments that compared the previous year's expenditures with the proposed allotments. Using those amounts, he computed for each department the amount of deficit for the coming fiscal year caused by the $1.21 tax

levy. He calculated that the "total shortage" would be

"$61,903, or 15 cents on the assessed valuation of property." 19

A second argument bolstered the mayor's concern of inadequate funds for various departments. He was deeply worried about the wording of the law that originally enabled the city to pass the tax levy. Section four of the law approved on March 19, 1889, stated that the revenue raised for the "acquisition or maintenance or improvement of [the city's) public parks or boulevards or both" should "be applied to no other use or purpose." Mayor Thomas' objection to the provision of the law was that the city, with that statute in effect, could "not safely depend on any surplus which might be remaining at the close of the fiscal year" in

19Ibid., 8 October 1898, 3; The councilmen present at the meeting with the mayor were the following: Woodward, Rowe, Girard, Pringle, and Cuvellier. 107

that special park and boulevard fund "to aid us by transfer

to any fund used for maintenance purposes." Once the special

fund for parks and boulevards was established, the city could

not use that money, even a surplus, for any other purposes. 20

On October 14, 1898, Mayor Thomas did indeed veto the

$1.21 tax levy. In his letter of explanation to the public

he listed the deficits the levy would cause in the various

departments, particularly the high school, free library,

street, and fire departments. By making several changes in the original levy, he proposed a new tax of $1.20. For

instance, he suggested that the council cut the allocation

for Lake Merritt in half and the sewer expenditure to less t han hateIf h orlglna., I amount. 21

Mayor Thomas ended the letter by writing: "I dislike very much to veto an ordinance. This is my ninth veto out of

one hundred and forty-nine ordinances passed by the Council.

My vetoes have been sustained with one exception." This veto

of the $1.21 tax levy was as successful as most of his

previous ones. The city council soon thereafter passed a

levy that satisfied Mayor Thomas' requirements. After much

debate, the council approved a new $1.21 tax levy at a meeting on October 18, 1898. Keeping the total amount the

20 Ibid .

21 Ibid., 14 October 1898, 1. 108

same as the previous levy, they rearranged the numbers, allocating more money to certain funds by taking money away from others. For instance, the city council took money away from the sewer fund and increased the high school fund. The tax levy finally became law at a special meeting of the city council on November 1, 1898, where, immediately after its f lna. 1 passage, Mayor Thomas slgne. d"lt lnto 1 aw. 22

The tax levy included a fifteen-cent tax for the park and boulevard fund, which prompted the Oakland Tribune to praise the council for the "most important improvement" that the levy would insure. The tax would eradicate "what has been for years a nuisance, hazardous to health and life," the dangerous sanitary conditions of Lake Merritt. The special fund would be used for the improvement of Oakland's

"unrivaled water park, Lake Merritt and its surroundings, by dredging the lake, and filling in the marsh and tide lands from Twelfth street to the Eighth street bridge as well as the northern marsh." The result would be "a beautiful park" out of a "noisome eyesore." 23

While the members of Oakland's city council were struggling with the contentious tax levy and undertaking the project of dredging Lake Merritt, the combative issue of the

22 Ibid., 2 November 1898, 5.

23 Ibid., 19 October 1898, 4. 109

park land and improvement bond election was also dividing the council and the citizens of Oakland. The debate within the council during the original proposal for the election heralded difficulty in getting the bonds passed. The city council discussed and passed to print the proposal for a bond election at the meeting on August 15, 1898, the same meeting in which they easily approved the dredging project. Although the dredging project passed unanimously, the bond proposal provoked bitter debate among the council members. After the council dealt with the dredging project, Councilmember

William B. Pringle, an attorney, called up his ordinance proposing an election to vote on $320,000 worth of bonds.

The bond measure that ultimately was submitted to the voters provided for the issuance of four-percent bonds, of which

$240,000 worth would be used to purchase Adams Point as a park site, $50,000 to develop that site, $20,000 to beautify the West Oakland park site, and $10,000 to improve

Independence Square in East Oakland. The bonds would run for twenty years, and the funds for each of the projects would be kept separate from the others. In submitting his proposal,

Pringle noted that it was in the same course as the Lake

Merritt improvement of dredging approved earlier that . 24 meetlng.

240akland Enquirer, 16 August 1898, 6; 30 August, 1898, 1 . 110

Several members of the council immediately questioned the timing and necessity of the proposed bond election.

Councilman Cuvellier voiced his concern about the city spending approximately $3000 to conduct the election.

Predicting that the bond issue might lose, he worried that

Oakland's voters might blame the council for wasting money for an election. City Auditor Snow, in response to

Cuvellier's query, assured the council that the city could spend the amount and that he favored giving the people a chance to vote on the proposal. 25

Girard agreed with Cuvellier's argument that holding the election would be a "useless expense." He thought that the park ordinance "was dead long ago," and that no councilman in the room "honestly believed" that Oakland's citizens would vote for a park at the present time. After all, the council had just approved the expenditure of $80,000 to dredge Lake Merritt, and that expense would already raise the tax rate for the people. More than that, Girard believed

26 that the purchase price for Adams Point was too high.

Councilman Rowe judged that the present meeting was a good time "to kill" the park ordinance. He argued that the city should not be saddled with a debt of $290,000 for the

25 Ibid., 16 August 1898, 6.

26 Ibid . 111

purchase and improvement of Adams Point as a park. Noting that the land was only sixty-two acres, he stated that it was

"too small for a park and too large for a plaza." Although not opposed to a tax levy of twenty cents to improve Lake

Merritt, Rowe believed that it was "almost criminal" to spend the money in the manner proposed for the bond election. 27

Despite the initial arguments, the council passed the ordinance for the bond election to print with eight members voting for the proposal and three (Girard, Rowe, and Upton) against. The council made its final approval at a meeting on

August 29, 1898. When Mayor Thomas signed the bill into law the next day, he explained his decision by saying that the people should decide whether or not the city should issue bonds for acquiring and improving public parks. 28

Several civic and commercial organizations professed their support for the bond issue, including the Merchants'

Exchange, the Lake Merritt Improvement Club, the West Oakland

Improvement Club, and the Board of Trade. Central to the issue was a widely publicized address submitted by a committee of "influential citizens," who claimed they had carefully considered the bond proposal "not from any personal motive, but for the general welfare of the community." The

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid., 30 August 1898, 1. 112

committee responsible for the letter of explanation was made

up of the following eight people: John A. Britton, J. K.

McLean, R. W. Snow, James Moffitt, James P. Taylor, W. B. 29 English, J. F. W. Sohst, and Frank K. Mott.

The committee offered several arguments for

supporting the bond proposal (see appendix D for the complete

article). The committee members based their arguments on

economics rather than on the merits of a park per se. Basing

their calculations on amounts given to them by the city

auditor, they pointed out that the average taxpayer would

only pay an additional twenty-seven cents per year, a total

of $2.70 for the first ten years of the bonds. For the last ten years of the bonds, the taxpayer would pay an additional

forty-two and one-half cents per year, or a total of $4.25 on

each $1,000 worth of property for the final ten-year period.

Referring to the first ten-year payment of $2.70, the

committee invoked an argument of interurban rivalry by

comparing the average taxpayer's payment to a trip across the bay to visit San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. If the

taxpayer would visit San Francisco's park only three times a

year, the cost of a family of three persons would be "$2.70

per year for fares alone, or $27 in ten years.,,30

290akland Tribune, 28 October 1898, 1.

30 Ibid . 113

Attacking the criticism concerning the high cost of the Adams Point property, the committee compared the price of the property to parcels of other land nearby and concluded that lots in the vicinity of Adams Point were being sold "for three times" the price being asked for the proposed park land. In their address to the people of Oakland, the

"committee of influential citizens" also defended the size of

Adams Point and its location. The authors pointed out that the land had "a frontage of nearly one mile on Lake Merritt," which was "one-third of the frontage around the whole lake."

They also noted that Westlake Park, "the pride of the city of

Los Angeles," contained "only thirty-six acres, including the lake." This was smaller than the sixty-two acres of Adams

Point, which people had criticized as being too small for a park. Furthermore, the area of Lake Merritt alone was "180 acres, so that the total area of the land and water in the

Oakland park" would be 242 acres, much larger than the park in Los Angeles. 31

The committee's article also praised the park's location in "the center of the city." The members of the committee quoted distances furnished by the County Surveyor of Alameda County indicating the number of feet from Adams

Point to various streets and transportation stations.

31 Ibid . 114

Referring to a map of Oakland, the committee noted that the proposed park was "shown to be nearly in the center of the city, and [would] likely to remain so for many years to come." The authors contended that the savings "in car fares alone, because of the advantageous location of the park,

[would] equal three-fourths of the interest on the proposed issue of bonds. ,,32

The committee's letter advocating the parks' bond issue became a rallying point around which the proponents gathered. Not content, though, simply to rely on the points addressed by the committee, supporters of the bonds addressed other issues as well. In doing so, they echoed common themes prevalent within the City Beautiful movement on a national level. They argued that the purchase and improvement of

Adams Point would benefit the workers of the city, help

Oakland compete against other cities, and, perhaps, provide a facility that would cause the residents to consider the city as one entity, rather than in terms of their particular neighborhoods only.

A Berkeley landscape architect, at a speech given to the Merchants' Exchange on October 25, 1898, noted the benefits the park would have to the working men of the city.

He said that a business opening up in Oakland would have to

32 Ibid . 115

"go abroad" to get its material," but, in improving the park,

"labor, material, rock, water, lumber and iron would have to be got at home." Furthermore, indulging in a bit of hyperbole, he asserted that sixty-five cents of every dollar spent in purchasing Adams Point "would come back to the 33 people."

Responding to working people's complaints that parks benefited the wealthy only, M. K. Miller, Oakland's superintendent of streets, assured the laboring people that local companies hiring local men would be chosen for the job of improving the park site. In a letter to the Oakland

Tribune, he wrote that resident contractors had done all the city's contract work for the previous two years, had done a good job, and had proved that they could compete against companies from other cities. He summarized his position with the assurance that there was "absolutely no reason whatsoever to fear that the money which is provided for improving these parks will be paid to non-resident workmen.,,34

Several proponents of the bond issue appealed to the voters' civic pride in their community. Especially galling for many people of Oakland was the success of its formidable neighbor, San Francisco. For instance, E. C. Sessions, in

33 Ibid., 26 October 1898, 4.

34 Ibid., 27 October 1898, 6. 116

his address to the Oakland Improvement Club, acknowledged the demeaning reputation of Oakland as "the bed chamber of San

Francisco." Along with others who did business in Oakland, though, he had "ambitions for the city" that would greatly improve its status. They believed, however, that the refusal of homeowners to pay a meager twenty-seven cents a year for the bonds was thwarting their aspirations. Making the problem more irritating to Oakland's leaders was that the

"average small property owner" paid nearly three dollars a year in fares to take his family across the bay to Golden

Gate Park in San Francisco. The citizen who then refused to pay twenty-seven cents a year for Oakland's "vast improvements" was, in the opinions of supporters of local parks, "to say the least, unreasonable." 35

Finally, the date of the election, October 29, 1898, arrived. The Oakland Tribune, which had been following the results throughout the day, confidently announced as the headline in their evening paper, "BONDS HAVE THEIR DAY."

From the indications prevalent in the polls, it seemed to the newspaper a "safe prediction" that Oakland would "secure its parks through the vote" of the day. 36

35 Ibid., 27 October 1898, 2; 28 October 1898, 4.

36 Ibid., 29 October 1898, 1. 117

Although coming close to winning, the bond issue actually lost, once again setting the stage for another election in future years. With 3640 ballots in the affirmitive and 2523 in the negative, there was a clear majority of 1287 votes for the bonds. Needing a two-thirds majority for the ordinance to pass, though, the bonds required 4013 votes in favor. Thus the issue failed by only

373 votes. 37

After all the attention given to the bond issue prior to the election, the newspapers quickly became mute on the topic after its failure, devoting very little space to thoughtful analysis of the bonds' defeat. The editors seemed content to vow their continued struggle for the improvement of Oakland, to publish several letters from citizens disappointed with the result, and to champion a new plan for acquiring the park land.

The newspapers regretted the loss and pledged their continued support for the improvements of Oakland and the acquisition of more park land. For instance, the Oakland

Saturday Night regretted the potential loss of Adams Point to the city, for it had been, in effect, a park for so long.

The public had "always been welcome to roam over Adams Point, and on it have been picnics innumerable." The editors

37 Ibid., 31 October 1898, 4. 118

believed the acquisition of that land was a "duty" their generation owed to the next ones. If the land were lost to the city, "future citizens would never forgive the unpardonable stupidity, which could lose so beautiful a park site as Adams Point. ,,38

The Oakland Tribune published a letter from J. F. W.

Sohst, a member of the committee of eight discussed earlier, who wanted another bond election. After conversing with over three hundred people, he believed that the bonds would easily win in another election. He also wrote in defense of Edson

Adams, the owner of Adams Point, whom many criticized for the exorbitant price for his land. Sohst applauded Adams for refusing to cut the wonderful oak trees on his property when others were indiscriminately chopping down the oak trees for firewood, thus Adams preserved the natural beauty of the 39 land. The editors of the Tribune agreed with Sohst's analysis of the election. The prevailing opinion was that the defeat was in "large measure" the result of the "ultra confidence in success" felt by the proponents of the measure.

Consequently, they had not devoted enough effort to the

"missionary work needed to convince some of the doubtful voters" of the need for the proposed improvements. After

380akland Saturday Night,S November 1898, 5.

390akland Tribune, 31 October 1898, 1. 119

every election in which the bonds for parks failed, the bonds' advocates relied on the tired explanation of voters being overconfident, assuming the favorable result, and thus not making the effort to win converts or even to vote in the first place. Although there was some validity to this generalization, it also effectively masked other vital, legitimate concerns of Oakland's citizens.

The historian William Wilson observed that civic planning in the City Beautiful movement worked less well in cities with a strong industrial base, like Oakland. He theorized that such cities had a high proportion "of laborers likely to be skeptical of sweeping improvement plans." Those cities "may have lacked a large, powerful, dedicated middle class." Another characteristic of the City Beautiful movement was an "assumption that a small, well-organized group could direct a leaderless, mentally dormant public toward preselected goals." The leaders in Oakland operated on the same assumption; they had ambitious plans for improving the city but had difficulty in persuading enough common voters to support their plans. Mel Scott, in his analysis of the election in 1898, noted that a "progressive element in Oakland" displayed "increased determination" to make the shores of the lake into a park. They received 120

numerous setbacks, however, before "overcoming the resistance of a backward minority. ,,40

Although the generalizations of a "mentally dormant public" and a "backward minority" are accurate, in actuality one can not simply rely on such sweeping categorizations of the opponents of the bond measure. Many of the objectors were successful businesspeople who had legitimate concerns.

A public debate over a new proposal presented some of those reasons for denying the bonds.

The supporters of the bonds quicky regrouped and initiated two new proposals after the election. Believing that many advocates of the bonds had simply been too confident in the favorable outcome to vote, some suggested that the city hold another election sixty days later. A more ambitious scheme provoked considerable public debate. That debate was enlightening because the newspaper editors allowed the printing of both positive and negative responses to the proposal, a freedom not exercised prior to the bond election.

Many of the negative comments illuminated what some groups thought were valid reasons for the negative vote for the new proposal as well as the defeated bond issue.

40William H. Wilson, The City Beautiful Movement (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1989), 292, 276; Mel Scott, The San Francisco Bay Area: A Metropolis in Perspective, 2d ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 86. 121

To raise money for park improvements, the reformers

proposed to sell the block of land in central Oakland on

which City Hall was located. According to the arguments in

favor of the sale, it would accomplish several necessary

improvements. The present city hall building was run down

and unfit for the government of a growing city. A new city hall would better represent the city and would also house various city agencies that presently were scattered around the city. (The concept of a civic center housing all the

government agencies in one impressive area was also a

characteristic of the City Beautiful movement.) Furthermore, the existing city hall effectively blocked Washington Street

and forced people to travel around the block, an unnecessary

inconvenience and a tragic detriment to the businesses

located in that area. Realtors confidently estimated that the city could sell the land for $600,000. That amount of money would be more than enough to purchase and build upon a different site for a new city hall. The city could then use the excess money from the sale to purchase and improve Adams

Point for a park.

Oakland's city council met on November 7, 1898, and discussed the selling of city hall. Councilman Pringle asked

for a report from the committee, consisting of Rowe,

Henneberry, and Brosnahan, which had been studying the proposal for the previous year. Since the committee had 122

nothing to report after its year of work, Earl suggested that the council dissolve the group and that the council's chairman, Heitmann, appoint a new committee of five, including himself. Heitmann did so and announced the committee on November 10; Brosnahan was the chairman with 41 Watkinson, Rowe, Pringle, and Heitmann serving as members.

While the council arranged for a new committee, the newspaper editors published numerous opinions of Oakland's citizens expressing arguments both for and against the new proposal. Although most of the comments published were in favor of the idea, the negative comments allowed into print presented some legitimate concerns of the citizens, many of which were common in other cities struggling with the City

Beautiful and progressive movements.

Some "prominent businessmen" expressed their distrust of the civic leaders. For example, L. A. Raleigh, who was involved in real estate, favored selling city hall and building a new one if he was "sure that there would be honest men to handle the money." H. D. Talcott, an attorney, expressed a similar belief. He thought that Oakland should have a new city hall that "would be an honor and a credit to the city," with the reservation that he would "want the matter carried out in an honest and judicious manner"; he

410akland Tribune, 8 November 1898, 5; 10 November 1898, 2. 123

would not want "the work let by political contacts." J. S.

Corrigan, an undertaker, was a bit more blunt in his assessment. He was against the proposal because he thought

its advocates were "trying to put a lot of money into [their] hands. [He] would not put a cent in their hands. "42

Others judged that the price for the Adams Point property was exorbitant. J. S. Meyers, whose occupation was

in real estate, thought that the price was too high and that the parcel of land was neither large enough nor the "proper place" for a park. Instead of Adams Point, he favored the purchase of "outside property" for no more than $400 an acre.

Newton Benedice, also in real estate, likewise disagreed with the purchase of Adams Point at the proposed price. He advocated buying a "larger tract at a cheaper rate."43

S. Sanderson, who worked in a carpet store, agreed with the sale of the city hall property but objected to the purchase of Adams Point for several reasons. He thought that the purchase price would be "like paying the first $5 on a

$1000 investment." The first expenditure would be "only a drop in the bucket" compared with the amount of money that would be required "to make a park out of it and keep it in proper shape." Furthermore, he argued that Oakland had been

42 Ibid., 2 November 1898, 6,8.

43 Ibid., 1 November 1898, 2; 2 November 1898, 8. 124

unable to improve the parks it already owned. He was

"opposed to any additional park till the others [were]

. d ,44 lmprove . I

H. G. Walker, an attorney, emphasized the need for

Oakland to obtain "municipal control of the electric light plants and the water supply," rather than parks. If the sale of the city hall property would be used for that purpose, he would support the proposal. His explanation for the failure of the bonds in the election was that the voters did not want to be financially "hampered" in their quest for control of the city's utilities. 45

The Oakland EnQuirer, in an editorial prior to the bond election, also emphasized the need for city-owned utilities, although the editor did not relate the project to the bond proposal. In the editor's opinion, Oakland needed to investigate another source of revenue to avoid "an excessive tax rate that [would] tend to discourage investment" as the city sought to keep pace with other

"progressive municipalities." The needs of a "growing city" were "constantly expanding, and, providing for sanitary improvements, parks, boulevards, public buildings, libraries, education, police and fire protection," and other services

44 Ibid., 1 November 1898, 2.

45 Ibid . 125

the citizens expected required a larger amount of money. A good way to raise such money other than taxes or bonds would be to use the profits earned by city-owned utilities. 46

Opponents of the city hall proposal also mentioned a variety of other objections. Taliesen Evans wrote a passionate letter stating that "any public officer who would be a party to such an infamous transaction as the sale of

City Hall property for any purpose [would] be fit to be mobbed. " He accused the realtors of trying to make "a good turn" for themselves through the proposal. William T.

Hamilton believed that Oakland had enough parks and the present city hall was fine. A. C. Henry, a "capitalist," questioned the sale of such good property and also suggested that the city improve the parks it already had before purchasing more. W. F. Rudolph, in real estate, was afraid that Oakland would end up losing money in the complicated transaction. Phil Walsh, an attorney, did not submit any reasons and simply stated that he was against the proposal.

J. A. Bliss, who worked in the Oakland Cream Depot, believed the city should first have "a new City Hall, a new library and a hotel" before getting a park. 47

46Oakland Enquirer, 29 August 1898, 4.

47 Oakland Tribune, 8 November 1898, 6; 10 November 1898, 8. 126

Many respectable business people objected to the purchase of Adams Point as a park. When given an opportunity, they expressed valid concerns with which the city would wrestle for several more years. Due to the tremendous conflict within the city and the council, the proposal to sell the City Hall property also faded away, thus leading to another attempt for civic improvement in 1904. 127

<-ANO II«~

A .8lJ~hr"q ~Qrl(. 1!l(}J#t1. 7/~ 4. Park. -'f:(lt1t1 u.zlI6- c. WesrOaKland Park. . JUIlt1 D. D~ rrcmuy. PropUt) l.>.Uo 9t17.r ~. p~"",c 'It'Ir.,X.i;""I. Ihi1' /z~. ,.. Fbnr. 2.lJ6"i1 Nti4-. f 6 .City';;'1/. 4-""",. if. Wnort 1f71'" .W 1.Porl< ,~•• fl. W,g.lIlS. I.J'V.•' • ..,u,2." f~ k . 8",,1...,., r...~.. " t .~C_A$-"_", I.. HolY' JI.J'" .' ,." . Au#...,.. ..(;~~:: 'V.C~/rtr,.t. '\ :Jt1•••"IVtA••• I· I Po ~..,I''''N U,.JI.;w.., flt.~ c 11.9111 I

\ '... ':' .-

\\

'..

I'

.. i. '\W.

:f: .~; t • ! I: ; I. I j. !.~, , MAP SHOWING PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

Oakland Herald, 3 September 1904, 11. I- ~- '~~'i: ...... 11 4 • '~j " .I.' 0" 4'· • r .. -. ,~,." - .'. 4 ... ".~ •. _ ... , . '1' . ' :(!~::.~~t1i; .. ". <-" ~:~: --; "'fTmlj' ".:',' :." .. j I l , .' .~ -.: '., . . ~.,.' :-.\f .: '.>,: ;', '.' 'j :.~ r y;,:.·;'L..i:. I ': . I • '1 • ,I. 1 , -.-, • 1 . . " I • ,I' •• • • J I,

I. ~. " ? , ;·1' . • J#f§;p¥l~ J

/'

If . ,I 'f~ : ~~ . .." ,

~ , '£ ...\ '-' '-"- ~ . I..>., t Ii' , j -, I' ". ~.A"'"~ ~ I .~II~,~", I .,gr- ... • 1' . ~ . . ',' . . 1. I , ''', o' '. I ~ ~~. !' (J J.. I .'./ ):/1 I I' "'. l': '.' - I II. . , .' • . \ ! .• '., •• I -( MAP'SHOWINIHEWACT OF 305 ACRES \yHICH THt REALTY' ~YNDICATE HAS BONPE $300,000, AN ,\VBI H ~SSESSOR DALTON S~YS IS WORTH ONLY $4~,000. SHOWING TH ~ SATHER T \CT E Cf·UDED, .' - I :, I i I·', " 1 ." ,'•

Oakland Tribune, 19 September 1904, 1. CHAPTER 5

THE ELECTION OF 1904

The leading citizens of Oakland, intent on thrusting their beloved city into national prominence, arranged yet another park bond election in 1904. Hoping to reverse their previous misfortunes, they organized an intensive publicity campaign and actively garnered citizens' support. The optimism was contagious, and many predicted an easy win at the voting booth.

Oakland's municipal government had undergone some changes in personnel since the last bond election of 1898.

On March 9, 1903, the city's voters elected new members of the city council and Warren Olney as mayor. On August 30,

1904, the city council, in an overwhelming consensus, voted for the passage of the bond issue in an election to be held on September 27, 1904. 1

lSan Francisco Chronicle, 31 August 1904, 7. Nine of the eleven councilmembers approved the bonds; H. Elliott was absent and George E. Aitken abstained due to a personal conflict between his general disapproval of bonds versus his support for some of the proposed projects.

129 130

The city council enthusiastically approved the placement of eleven different propositions, totaling $2,492,000, on the ballot. Councilman John L. Howard, in a speech at a Progress

Federation meeting on September 1, explained that amount by classifying the projects into "natural groups." He asserted that "$1,069,250, or 43 per cent of the total," would be

"devoted to beautifying the city or for recreational uses," like public parks, playgrounds, and Central Park. Meanwhile,

"$1,422,750, or 57 per cent," would be "for the purposes that may be regarded as more practical and utilitarian" such as sewers, wharves, and dredging Lake Merritt (see map page

127) 2

According to Councilman Howard, the committee studying the park plans presented in the propositions used Lake

Merritt, "with its ample area of about 160 acres . as the basis for developing the comprehensive park scheme." Since

2Oakland Herald, 2 September 1904, 7. The eleven proposals were the following: public parks and playgrounds $570,850 Central Park 450,000 boulevards 301,670 construction of sewers 121,440 wharves 15,000 dredging of Lake Merritt 48,400 building culverts 49,640 bituminous crosswalks, bridges 127,000 polytechnic high school site 143,000 finish public library 15,000 purchase site and erect a new 650,000 city hall San Francisco Chronicle, 31 August 1904, 7. 131

Lake Merritt had last been dredged in 1893 and needed dredging again, the councilmen allocated $48,400 for that purpose. Following the ideas submitted in previous elections, they proposed to use the silt from the bottom of the lake for the construction of the boulevards and parks.

Accordingly, the city officials planned to spend $41,900 on a boulevard on the west side of the lake and $116,350 on another one on the east side. They also planned to purchase land and to improve it for use as a public park in two locations, one on the west side of the lake ($183,200) and one south of the Twelfth Street dam ($145,000).3

Although the proposals centered on Lake Merritt, they significantly included vast areas away from the city's center. One reason that the proposals encompassed such a city-wide area was that Oakland itself had been rapidly expanding due to the successful introduction of the electric railway, "a new form of local transportation that soon began to disperse population from the central cities and to accelerate the growth of peripheral areas and suburbs." Thus the railway greatly changed urban life. Once dependent on

30akland Herald, 2 September 1904, 7. Councilman Howard acknowledged that the plan for sections of boulevard did not complete a boulevard around the lake. He explained, however, that the council "felt that at this time it was not justified in going further in its recommendations," and he expressed the council's hope that a city council in the near future would complete the project. 132

horse-drawn carriage lines that radiated from the center of

Oakland to areas only three or four miles distant, people now

had access, via the electric railway, to land six to twelve

miles away_ At first the promoters of the electric railways

established the lines along the historic routes of travel,

but they soon expanded the transit lines into undeveloped

tracts of land. The railway speculators were usually

interested in luring customers to the end of the railway

lines to sell them real estate, and would even operate the

transit lines at a financial loss, if they were able to earn

sufficient profit from the sale of land. Thus the East Bay

evolved into a long, narrow, urban community stretching from

the north to the southeast, hemmed in by the bay on the west

and the rugged hills on the east. 4

Playing an integral role in the development of the

transit system in the East Bay was the Realty Syndicate, a

private company owned by Francis Marion Smith, the "borax

king", and Frank C. Havens, a land speculator. They had

formed this partnership in order to challenge the Southern

Pacific Railroad's monopoly of the transbay ferry services,

which connected in the East Bay with the Southern Pacific's

local steam trains joining Alameda, Oakland, and Berkeley.

4Mel Scott, The San Francisco Bay Area: A Metropolis in Perspective, 2d ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 84. 133

Smith and Havens' "grandiose scheme" was to purchase large amounts of undeveloped land in the East Bay, consolidate existing street railways, and extend new lines into the vacant parcels of land that they hoped to sell. They hoped to generate business by creating a fast transbay ferry service that would connect with their transit lines. Their company would also operate picnic grounds, amusement parks, and hotels at the ends of the railway lines to lure customers to their system. s

In order to achieve his goals, "Borax" Smith began acquiring local railroads in 1893. He attracted public interest by expressing his desire to reduce the travel time between Berkeley and San Francisco from fifty-five to twenty­ six minutes. His overall intention of creating a comprehensive transportation system in the East Bay, however, was ambitious even for a man "reputed to be worth

$30,000,000," and it took several years of work before he was able to seriously compete against the Southern Pacific. Late in 1897 the Realty Syndicate took full control of the street railways in which Smith had earlier purchased interest. In

1898 the business acquired four other companies and organized all its transit lines under the heading Oakland Transit

Company. By the end of 1898, the new company's system

SIbid., 85. 134

"included approximately ninety-eight miles of street

railways, many of which penetrated tracts then being

subdivided" by Smith and Havens. 6

As real estate speculators, Smith and Havens supported

the bond proposals and were integrally involved in the tract

of land set aside for Central Park. Of course many other

prominent citizens of Oakland also joined together in working

for the passage of the proposed bonds. They organized the

Progress Federation Club as a way of focusing their efforts towards that goal. As the president of the group, Stearns noted that the federation "consisted for the sole purpose of working for the upbuilding of Oakland and working assiduously along any lines that will tend to make Oakland more beautiful, more widely known, and a better city." To accomplish that goal, the association included

"representatives of all improvement clubs within the city

limits: the Oakland Board of Trade, the Merchants' Exchange,

Central Labor Union, Letter Carriers Association, Real Estate

Association, and the civic bodies." The federation members advocated their views by giving speeches at other clubs, organizing neighborhood meetings, and sponsoring a big parade on September 26, 1904, the evening before the election. 7

6Ibid., 85-86.

7Oakland Herald, 2 September 1904, 7; There are several reports of speeches given by members of the federation at 135

One common idea, powerfully and frequently espoused,

worked as a motivating force behind the members of the

Progress Federation. Many supporters sensed that this

election was a turning point for Oakland, an event that would

greatly influence the city's future. The Oakland Herald

compared the local election to the national presidential

contest of that same year. It argued that if "a mistake

should be made and a Democrat elected President the mistake

can be rectified four years hence"; but, if "a mistake is made and areas now desired for parks and boulevards are

allowed to be improved for residences and villas, so that

they can pass out of the market, the mistake will be

irreparable." Philip M. Fisher, the principal of the

Polytechnic High School and a member of the Progress

Federation, asserted that Oakland's "fate as a city is now in the balance." The people of Oakland "may have a thriving

city or a dead town, just as [they] choose." Of major

concern, though, was the idea that once the citizens made their choice, they would be "powerless to stop the trend of the movement, whether upward or retrograde." 8 meetings of other clubs. For example, J.J. Victory of the Good Government Club of West Oakland asked for a speaker at a meeting of the federation on September 15 (Oakland Herald, 16 September 1904, 2), and Stearns addressed a meeting of the Women's Civic Improvement Club on September 12 (Oakland Herald, 13 September 1904, 2).

8 Ibid., 13 September 1904, 4; 2 September 1904, 7. 136

Opponents of the bonds, however, raised several objections about the proposals, several of which had contributed to the defeat of park and boulevard bonds in previous municipal elections. For instance, a rift existed between the different economic classes. Many of the wage­ earners believed that the parks benefited the rich, not the poor, since the proposed improvements favored the wealthy by being placed in the richer sections of town, not the sections where the workers lived. In addition, some people still felt uncomfortable with the concept of bonds, and the idea of going into debt to finance "nonessential" items, a debt that their children would ultimately have to pay. Others disagreed with certain propositions, such as the acquisition of land and construction of a new city hall, or felt that before the city financed these proposals, the municipal government should deal with other items, such as the creation of a city waterworks company.

The prevalent controversy centered on the class struggle between the wealthy and the poor, between management and labor. Colonel John P. Irish, one of the founders of the

West Oakland Improvement Association in 1889, recognized the problem in an address he made at a meeting of the Progress

Federation on September 1. He asserted that it "is not a class proposition and we want to show the poor man that he will get more than his proportionate benefit from it." At 137

the same meeting Councilman John L. Howard argued that parks

were not only for the rich, but also for the poor: "The

wealthy, and those that can afford the expense, visit the

parks in vehicles and on horseback, but the areas devoted to

such driveways form only a small percentage of the total.

Apart from the roadways," he went on to say, "the grassy

slopes of the lawns and the shade of the trees are made use

of by the working people. "9

The bonds' supporters pointed to Golden Gate Park in San

Francisco as evidence of the workers' use of the parks. They

challenged their adversaries to visit the park in San

Francisco and "watch the thousands of men and women who make

a living during the week with their hands and their brains,

accompanied by their children," enjoying themselves in the park. 10

Taking the example of Golden Gate Park one step further, the proponents of the bond measures argued that the money

spent by the people from Oakland who visited San Francisco's park helped their rival city rather than their own. Stearns presented that idea to the Women's Civic Improvement Club in a speech on September 13, 1904. He told the women that the money they spent when they took their friends to Golden Gate

9 Ibid., 2 September 1904, 7,8.

10 Ibid., 24 September 1904, 1. 138

Park, "or that the young man leaves over there when he takes his sweetheart or sister, would almost pay for the Sather

Tract [the land set aside for Central Park] within a year.

That, too, would all be spent at home." 11

The Progress Federation persistently emphasized that the money would be spent in Oakland, thus benefiting the workers.

George W. Langan directly addressed the accusation of the bond proposals being a "rich man's project" in a speech given at a meeting of the Progress Federation on September 1, 1904.

According to the information given to him, about one third of the two and a half million dollars would be used for the purchase of land for parks and boulevards. Who, then, would get the greater portion of the other two thirds? Langan said, "It is to be spent in improvements and will be paid to the men who do the work. Nearly two million dollars will go into the pockets of the men who are employed in these various enterprises." Therefore, as Hugh Hogan later pointed out, many of the poor men "will get hundreds of days' work when they would not have gotten any." 12

The supporters of the bonds persisted in their wooing of the wage-earner by interpreting the amount of the bonds in a

11 Ibid., 13 September 1904, 2.

12 Ibid., 2 September 1904, 7,8; 15 September 1904, 2. See also the speech given by Henry A. Dodge as reported in the Oakland Herald on 13 September 1904, 1,2. 139

way that clearly demonstrated the benefits to the laboring class. According to this argument, the wealthiest citizens of Oakland would pay most of the costs of the bonds while the workers would pay little. The Oakland Herald, on September

13, 1904, noted that eighty percent of the voters of Oakland paid taxes on a property valuation of less than $1800. The editorial argued that the "person who is assessed for that sum, $1800, will, if the bonds carry, pay $4.08 more taxes the first year than he now pays, and that amount will decrease every year thereafter." According to Stearns, if

"that is the case the other twenty per cent who own much property will pay for the parks."13

According to this interpretation of the finances involved, the worker would benefit in several ways. First of all, the wealthiest twenty percent of the voters would pay the most for the bonds. Secondly, the workers who owned their own homes would enjoy the increase in value of their homes since the value would rise proportionately along with that of the other homes. Thirdly, many members of the labor force would be guaranteed employment for a lengthy period of time as they worked on the proposed projects. Finally, if

13 Ibid., 13 September 1904, 2,4. 140

nothing else, Hogan said, the worker would "get the use of

the parks, and at no expense." 14

Some employers also brought some pressure to bear on their employees to vote for the bonds. As noted at a meeting of the Progress Federation on September 15, 1904, many of the

large commercial houses were willing "to have their employees

instructed as to the merits of the bond issue. Several proprietors have [also] signified their intention of calling their employees together and urging them to support the bonds." 15

The Progress Federation also used symbolism in their attempt to garner the workers' vote; it sponsored a large parade through Oakland the night before the election. Prior to the parade, the publicity stated that the parade would be

"a novelty" since there would be "no uniforms and no one marcher [would be] better than another; employer and employee will march shoulder to shoulder for progress. . Marshal

Heeseman and his aids will walk just the same as every other marcher for progress."16

Intent upon winning the support of the labor class of

Oakland, the supporters of the bonds became more persuasive

14 Ibid., 13 September 1904, 4; 15 September 1904, 2

15 Ibid., 16 September 1904, 2.

16 Ibid., 26 September 1904, 1. 141

as the day of the election drew closer. The Oakland Herald enthusiastically reported that the working men's views were changing from disinterest to support for the bonds. It noted on September 16 that the "apathy which characterized the first part of the campaign is giving place to an absorbing interest among all classes." On September 26, the paper reported that "it seems that interest [in the bonds] is general. At the corner of Broadway and Tenth street, where laboring men are accustomed to gather, the bonds furnish the topic for much enthusiastic discussion." But the paper neglected to indicate whether the discussion was for or against the bonds. 17

On the day before the election, September 26, the

Oakland Herald wrote a final, vehement message addressed "To the Laboring Voter:"

You want work at good wages, do you not? The more work there is to be done the better will be your wages and the more steady your employment. Is not that true? The voting of the Oakland improvement bonds means that $1,600,000 in good dollars will be poured into the industrial life of Oakland for labor and for the materials upon which labor will work. Don't suffer political or personal considerations to stand between you and your own interests. The rich man pays and the poor man enjoys. This is your opportunity. Vote for the bonds from top to bottom.

17 Ibid., 16 September 1904, 2; 26 September 1904, 1. 142

You want a better distribution of wealth. Here is a chance to obtain it. Twenty per cent of the taxpayers pay the greater part of this burden. They are willing to do it. 18

While trying to court the working men's vote, though, some proponents of the bonds probably added to the resentment of the laboring class who believed that the propositions were for the benefit of the wealthy, not the poor. Using a common technique of the City Beautiful movement, several prominent citizens of Oakland told of their visits to the East and to

Europe where they enjoyed the beautiful parks in major cities such as Cincinnati, St. Louis, New York, Paris (France), and

Hanover (Germany). Although the pleasant experiences in other cities' parks were a welcome argument to some people, the men who worked hard eking out a living and did not have much free time to enjoy the serene environment of a park probably resented the casual references to the trips abroad by the upper class. 19

18 Ibid., 26 September 1904, 4.

19There are many such references scattered throughout the Oakland Herald. For instance, Councilman John L. Howard spoke of his trip in the 2 September 1904 issue on pages 7-8. Henry A. Dodge, part owner of a thriving business, and Superior Court Judge Henry A. Melvin gave their accounts in the 13 September 1904 issue on pages 1-2. Dr. E.R. Sill related his experiences at a pro-bond meeting in East Oakland, as reported in the 15 September 1904 issue on pages 1-2. 143

A corollary to the class dispute was a sectional issue.

Members of the working class, who lived predominantly in West

Oakland, felt that their section of town was not receiving its fair share of parks. Of course, the members of the

Progress Federation vehemently denied such an allegation and argued that the proposals were as fair as possible. Aspiring to a more noble concept, they argued that the people of

Oakland should forsake their narrow loyalties to neighborhoods and vote for the good of all Oakland; for as the city prospered, the various sections would also.

M. Lesser, the president of the Provision Trades

Council, acknowleged to a reporter of the Oakland Herald that the bond issue would "certainly help the city . [and] it will also help the working class." As "a representative of that class," however, he also recognized the problems of the parks' proposed locations by saying, "Breathing places, too, are needful, though if I were one that proposed the improvements I should have insisted on the establishment of parks in the district where working men live.,,2o

Of course, not every person in West Oakland felt that way. Colonel John P. Irish, as "a representative of West

Oakland" at a meeting of the Progress Federation on September

1, argued that the placement of the proposed parks was indeed

20 Ibid., 17 September 1904, 1. 144

fair to the various sections of the city. Not counting

Central Park, "which could not be located anywhere else than on the Sather tract," Colonel Irish noted that "East Oakland will have three parks and West Oakland four. The area is about the same for each section."21

P.M. Fisher, chairman of that same meeting of the

Progress Federation, asserted that there were "parks and boulevards in plenty protected in this scheme and all parts of the city will be well taken care of." His major point, though, was that these propositions "will benefit all parts of the city and every man, woman and child who lives here.

It is not a sectional or class question in any sense of the 22 word."

Later, on September 15, at a pro-bond meeting held in

East Oakland, Professor Lorenzo D. Inskeep, a teacher at

Oakland's Polytechnic High School, argued against sectionalism. He urged the people of East Oakland to support the parks in West Oakland so that they, in turn, would support the parks in the eastern part of the city. His main reason was that Oakland had grown too large for anyone item to be "of the greatest utility to all parts of the city."

Therefore, the people from all parts of the city had to vote

21 Ibid., 2 September 1904, 7,8.

22 Ibid . 145

for proposals that would not directly benefit their own sectlons.. 23

The underlying currents of dissatisfaction among the laboring class of people living in Oakland and the concerns inherent in the loyalty of the people toward their section of the city pervaded the debates over the park bonds. In addition, the voters focused their debates on two other specific issues, one on the ballot and one not. Of the eleven different proposals included on the ballot, the one concerning the acquisition and construction of a new city hall generated the most controversy. An issue missing from the ballot, the construction of a municipal water plant, also played a significant part in the discussions among the people.

The Oakland Herald clearly stated its view about the city hall proposal in an editorial on September 20. "The present structure is unsightly, unsanitary, inconvenient,

[and] unequal to the requirements made upon it." Supporting the proposal for a new city government building, the Herald claimed that upon "this new square in the heart of the city, bounded by four streets, there should be erected a municipal edifice convenient, reputable, staunch and possessing

23 Ibid., 15 September 1904, 1,2; Stearns also addressed the sectional issue in his speech to the Women's Civic Improvement Club, see the Oakland Herald, 13 September 1904, 2 . 146

artistic features that should be an inspiration to others to build more stately mansions." This idea was a common City

Beautiful concept. 24

Although agreeing that the existing city hall was in poor condition, many felt that the proposal was too opulent

for the city's needs. For instance, an alternate proposal was to sell the land and build a new city hall in a different, cheaper location. Councilman John L. Howard, though, supported the existing proposal and based his agreement on an ambitious look into the future. He noted

"the agitation for consolidating Alameda, Oakland, and

Berkeley" and said that the proposed "geographical location could not be improved" for such an occurrence. Justifying the plans for the construction of a larger city hall, Howard stated, "In view of the growing desire, nay, the necessity, for a union of the three cities, that even now are separated only by arbitrary lines, the official headquarters of the city should be made creditable and fitting for larger use." 25

Some voters, upset by the failure of the city council to place on the ballot a proposal for the creation of a

24 Ibid., 20 September 1904, 4.

25 Ibid., 2 September 1904, 7,8; Votes for the annexations of Berkeley and Piedmont occurred within several years after the election in 1904. Voting separately for each one, the annexation proposals all lost. See Oakland, California, Elections: 1852 to the Present (Office of the City Clerk: July, 1988). 147

municipal water plant, condemned expenditures for a new, large city hall and various other plans. On the night of

September 19, a group of people mysteriously and anonymously circulated a pamphlet contending that the water issue was more important to the city than the other bond proposals.

The next day, at an impromptu meeting held in response to the publication, Bernard P. Miller, an attorney and notary public, argued that the construction of a water plant was not feasible at that time. He said that this was "a plain business proposition. What we want now is the thing we can get now--the parks and boulevards. The water question is in such shape that it cannot be handled in any way at all."26

Being consistent with its pro-bond viewpoint, the

Oakland Herald published an editorial a few days later with its views on the subject of the water plant. It argued that the city needed a good water supply before making a water plant distribution system. Furthermore, Oakland could not realistically compete against the existing private water company, the Contra Costa Water Company. Later on, the city could construct a water plant since the current proposed bonds, if passed, would still leave five million dollars possible before the city reached its legal limit of bond indebtedness. Finally, the court system would eventually

26 Oakland Herald, 20 September 1904, 1,2. 148

decide the city's case that was currently pending against the

Contra Costa Water Company, at which time the city could

decide its plans for the water problem. 27

While voters agonized over the bond proposals, many members of the clergy assisted the progressive ideals by

speaking for the bonds in their sermons. For instance, the

Oakland Herald reported on Monday, September 26, that four pastors had preached "pro-bond sermons" the previous day.

More than that, the paper printed part of the address given by Reverend E.E. Baker of the First Presbyterian Church entitled "The Model City," in which he endorsed the bonds.

The Herald also included parts of the sermon presented by

Reverend H.J. Vosburgh of the First Baptist church entitled

"The Science of Voting," in which he spoke in favor of the bonds. 28 One member of the clergy who was very outspoken in his support of the bonds was the Reverend Father J.B.

McNalley of St. Patrick's Catholic Church. Father McNalley wrote several letters to Mayor Olney asking the Mayor's

27 Ibid., 22 September 1904, 4.

28 Ibid., 26 September 1904, 2,7; the four pastors mentioned are the following: Dr. Hugh Fraser, Brooklyn Presbyterian Church Rev. Robert Whitaker, Twenty-third Ave. Baptist Church Rev. Ernest B. Wining, Twenty-fourth Ave. Methodist Church Rev. Robert C. Stone, Centennial Presbyterian Church 149

opinion on several questions about the bond proposals. The

Oakland Herald published the correspondence as a means to persuade the voters to support the bonds. 29

Despite the concerns expressed by the voters of the city about the proposals benefiting the wealthy and certain sections of the town, the construction of a new city hall, and the failure of the city council to adequately address the issue of the water plant, a general spirit of optimism existed throughout the city. The dominant prediction was that the eleven bond proposals would easily pass and the city of Oakland would enter a new age of growth and progress.

With the outspoken support of many members of the clergy and prominent members of the community, the members of the

Progress Federation, although continuing their hard work, were optimistic about the election's results. As an example, the Oakland Herald, on September 16, 1904, published in large print the heading of an article, "Five to One in Favor of

Bonds. "30

Then disaster struck. On September 18, 1904, Henry P.

Dalton, the Alameda County assessor, stated in the san

Francisco Examiner that the site chosen for the Central Park was not worth the money allocated for it. The amount

29 Ibid., 22 September 1904, 2; 24 September 1904, 8.

30 Ibid., 16 September 1904, 1,2. 150

designated for bonds on the ballot for the acquisition of

Central Park was $450,000. The city council's intention was

to purchase 325 acres of land, called the Sather Tract, for

$300,000 with another $150,000 set aside for improvements on

the land.

Dalton argued that the land was worth only thirty-five

dollars an acre, not the $1000 per acre that the city council

had agreed as a purchase price. He also revealed that the

purchase did not include the entire Sather Tract, but only

the lower sections (see map on page 128). Also questioning

the feasibility of the plans for the new city hall, Dalton's

comments initiated a tremendous controversy in Oakland

regarding the Central Park issue and the integrity of the

city officials and people who supported the bonds.

Mayor Olney promptly visited the proposed park site and

wrote a letter to the people of Oakland endorsing it as a good location for the park, agreeing with the price of $1000 per acre, urging the people to visit the site themselves, and asserting that the Realty Syndicate, the company from which the city would purchase the land, was actually losing money on the transaction. The city council then met on September 19 and discussed Dalton's allegations. According to the report of the meeting by the Oakland Herald, every "Councilman present expressed himself in favor of the park proposition, without reservation." The paper's article included signed 151

statements by five council members giving their continued

o. 31 support to th e b ond proposltlons.

In a separate meeting on that same day, H.B. Beldon of the Progress Federation's campaign committee proposed the formation of a special committee to study the allegations concerning Central Park. The special committee would include

"representatives from the Progress Federation, the Board of

Trade, Merchants' Exchange, Real Estate Association, landscape gardeners, labor unions, bankers, and newspapers. "32

On the rainy morning of September 22 the special committee traveled to the proposed site of Central Park and studied the location. John McLaren, the highly respected superintendent of San Francisco's Golden Gate Park, and

Oakland's city engineer Turner went with the committee. At the end of their inspection, the group issued a report to the people of Oakland stating that they agreed that the location was a tremendous site for a park and that the disputed price of $1000 per acre was a fair amount and should be kept as such (see appendix E for the full report). The labor representatives, Charles W. Petry and C.J. Curran, added a

31 Ibid., 19 September 1904, 1; 20 September 1904, 2; the five councilmembers who submitted a signed statement of support were the following: B.C. Cuvellier J.T. Wallace B.D. Pendleton Albert H. Elliot Edward Meese

32 Ibid., 20 September 1904, 1,2. 152

note stating their agreement with the chosen site as fitting for a park but disassociating themselves from the disputed price since they claimed no knowledge of the determination of

. 33 rea1 est ate prlces.

The Realty Syndicate quickly began its spirited campaign against Dalton and for the proposition. The company relied on its mouthpiece, the Oakland Herald, to do so. The Oakland

Tribune, which initially supported all eleven proposals, carefully withdrew its support from the Central Park issue while urging its readers to make a favorable vote for the other ten items on the ballot. In making their decision, the editors of the Tribune relied heavily on the remarks made by

Superintendent McLaren, a disinterested expert. McLaren noted that Oakland needed to purchase the high ridges as well as the lower parts of the Sather Tract, otherwise people would build on them and shut out all the beautiful views.

Furthermore, McLaren advised the people of Oakland to forbid the Oakland Transit Company, "Borax" Smith's transportation company, the right to construct a railroad line through the park, as the company was intending to do. He summarized his position by recommending that Oakland "secure the entire

33 Ibid., 22 September 1904, 1. 153

portion of the Sather tract which has been left out of the present site."34

The Progress Federation Club, though, continued its aggressive, well-organized campaign. Their most unusual attack happened about a week before the election. The

Federation Club sponsored the printing of "thousands of white satin ribbons, about one inch in width and three inches in length, bearing the words 'Me? for the bonds-All of 'em!

You?'" The supporters of the bonds wore them throughout the city until the election. 35

The Oakland Herald castigated the opponents of the bonds, derisively called "knockers," with a scathing analysis of the personal harm that they did to themselves. In an editorial on September 8, 1904, the Herald argued that there were "many persons who are their own worst enemies, but the average 'knocker' suffers rather more persistently from that cause than other persons." The knockers, the editor insisted, hurt themselves by harming the city in which they lived by causing, if the bond proposals should fail, "Oakland to lose prestige among the cities of California," as well to delay the civic improvements. Therefore, a "little scrutiny into the truth will disclose the fact that the 'knocker'

~Oakland Tribune 24 September 1904, 4.

35Oakland Herald, 19 September 1904, 7. 154

knocks himself as certainly as he knocks others" by depriving the city of needed improvements and "by disclosing the fact that he is a 'knocker. I To be known as a 'knocker' in any community is to be turned down on all sides by all persons who have the power of exercising free choice." The editorial ended on a high moral plane by quoting Shakespeare: "'To thine own self be true, thou canst not then be false to any man. 1,,36

After all the debate, none of the eleven bond propositions received the necessary two-thirds vote. with the exception of the Central Park issue, though, all of the propositions did receive a majority of favorable votes. The propositions dealing with the sewers, the city wharves, and the cross walks actually came fairly close to the two-thirds

o 37 requJ.rement.

36 Ibid., 8 September 1904, 4.

370akland Tribune, 28 September 1904, 1; the total number of votes cast was 7,529, the number needed to pass the two-thirds requirement was 5,020. The results of the election were the following: .E.QJ;: Against public parks and playgrounds 3,823 3,414 Central Park 3,160 4,063 boulevards 3,954 3,243 construction of sewers 4,794 2,234 wharves 4,871 2,247 dredging of Lake Merritt 4,068 3,339 building culverts 4,346 2,629 bituminous crosswalks, bridges 4,825 2,338 polytechnic high school site 4,546 2,557 finish public library 4,380 2,758 new city hall 4,065 3,068 155

Explanations of the surprising results varied a great

deal. The Oakland Tribune blamed the failure of the election

on Mayor Olney and the city council for mishandling the

Central Park issue. The paper criticized the people who

supposedly would have received personal financial gain if the

issue would have passed. The Tribune also hastened to point

out that "the attack of the Realty Syndicate upon County

Assessor Henry P. Dalton did not discredit him with his

neighbors in his home precinct." As evidence, the paper noted that the vote for the proposition concerning Central

Park in the precinct in which Dalton lived, the third precinct in the fourth ward, "was 21 for and 137 against."38

Mayor Olney expressed his disappointment in the results

of the election and suggested that the losses were due to the

citizens' desire for a municipal water works. Councilman

Meese agreed with that interpretation and suggested that there be better education of the public concerning bonds and th e water work s lssue' before the next e 1ectlon. ' 39

38 Ibid.; Ironically, Henry P. Dalton was convicted on July 14, 1911, for accepting bribes as the Alameda County Assessor, a post he had held for seventeen years. He served several years in prison, always claiming his innocence. Governor Frank F. Merriam granted him a full pardon on April 20, 1935. See San Francisco Chronicle, 15 July 1911, 1; Oakland Tribune, 20 April 1935, 3; and his obituary in san Francisco Chronicle, 30 December 1936, 7.

39Oakland Herald, 28 September 1904, 1. 156

The Oakland Herald expressed its dissatisfaction in an editorial agreeing that the water problem discouraged people

from voting and disagreeing with the theory that the Central

Park issue led to the failure of all the other propositions.

The paper stated that the "most discouraging feature of the whole contest," however, was that only one half of the eligible voters actually cast a vote. 40 The San Francisco Chronicle, on the other hand, judged that the voter turnout of 7,529 was a good showing, compared to previous elections. The Chronicle argued that the major reason for the failure of the propositions was that the citizens of Oakland were not voting blindly any longer.

Instead, the people were showing more discrimination and

judgment rather than simply voting on an issue because a certain class of citizens wanted them to vote in a certain way. 41

Although not mentioned in the various newspapers at the time, there were several other reasons for the disappointing result of the election. Eleven different proposals on one ballot were too many for the populace to study and decide upon. There was too wide a variety of projects among the proposals, jumping from a polytechnic high school and a

40 Ibid .

41 San Francisco Chronicle, 29 September 1904, 6 157

library to sewers and dredging Lake Merritt. Some voters sensed the lack of focus among the city officials and the negative tendency of trying to accomplish too much at one time. Finally, all these proposals added up to a great deal of money. If every proposition had passed, the city of

Oakland would have gone into bond indebtedness to the amount of $2,500,000.

Although the proposals in the election of 1904 did not pass, the citizens of Oakland had once again grappled with issues such as parks, boulevards, sewers, and playgrounds, and had moved a step closer to the task of a large-scale, progressive improvement of the city. The following years brought further significant changes within the municipal government and provided the impetus for another election in

1907. Map Showing Locations of Proposed Public Improvements

Oakland Enquirer, 10 January 1907, 7. CHAPTER 6

THE ELECTION OF 1907

Although discouraged by the recurring losses of the bond issues in preceding elections, civic-minded voters of

Oakland remained determined to make their city recognized throughout the nation as a healthy, beautiful place in which to live. The day after the election of 1904 the Oakland

Herald eloquently expressed this resolve by promising that it would "unfalteringly uphold the moral, physical and industrial interests of Oakland just as though nothing had happened to lend a temporary check to enterprise."

Predicting that bonds would "be voted for all needed improvements some day," the paper asserted that "all lovers of Oakland should do missionary work in behalf of bonds."l

Several significant events in the years between 1904 and 1907 greatly influenced the movement for improving Lake

Merritt. First of all, the people of Oakland elected Frank

Mott as mayor in 1905. Mott was a progressive mayor who championed the cause of civic improvements, including the

1Oakland Herald, 28 September 1904, 4.

159 160

development of parks and the construction of boulevards.

Secondly, under Mott's leadership, the city council enlisted the help of Charles Mulford Robinson, a renowned city planner. After studying the city, Robinson submitted a detailed, long-range plan for beautifying Oakland. Finally, the infamous earthquake of 1906 devastated San Francisco and forced 200,000 people to flee the ruins of the city and seek refuge in Oakland. Many thousands of them liked Oakland and decided to make it their home. As a result, the population of Oakland grew and altered the composition of the city's electorate.

The civic election of 1905 was uncommonly good- natured and free of controversy. The incumbent mayor and city council "had given a satisfactory administration," but

Mayor Olney refused to run again in 1905. One of the chief issues in the election campaign was "that of public improvements, among which was the problem of beautifying the city. "2

Five people ran for mayor in the municipal election of 1905. Notable among them were John L. Davie, Jack London, and Frank Mott. John Davie had served one term as mayor of

Oakland in the 1890s, but he made a greater impact on Oakland

2 Joseph E. Baker, ed. Past and Present of Alameda County. California, vol. 1 (Chicago: The S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1914), 239. 161

when he later served as its mayor from 1915 to 1930. He was a popular person who became famous as a ferry-boat operator battling the powerful Southern Pacific Railroad's monopoly on the ferry system to and from San Francisco. Davie had drastically undercut the railroad's prices by charging only five cents per ride in his famous "Nickel Ferry." Through the years he consistently lost his frequent bids for mayor until the election of 1915, when he began a fifteen-year reign as mayor of Oakland. In the 1905 election he announced himself as an independent candidate who favored "a tax that should not exceed one dollar, the great improvement of the streets and parks and strict economy."3

The Socialists nominated author Jack London for mayor. Their platform "stated that the party favored the interests of the working class in antagonism to the interest of the exploiting class." Although a popular writer, London did not do well in the election itself. Since most voters were more interested in making improvements to the city than in becoming involved in a class struggle, this particular election did not involve the class and sectional conflict that prohibited the passage of the improvement bonds in prev10us. e l'ect1ons. 4

3Ibid., 241.

4 Ibid., 240. 162

Frank K. Mott was the eldest of six children. When he was eleven years old, his father died, so Mott quit school and worked to support his family. He eventually found a job working in a hardware store and ultimately came to own the store himself. He served on the city council from 1894 to

1901. Although urged to run for mayor in 1901 and 1903, he declined. He decided to run for mayor in 1905 and was endorsed by the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Municipal

League. 5

While nominating Mott at their municipal convention in the spring of 1905, the Republicans also formulated their platform for the campaign. Included in the platform was the party's desire for "the establishment of the boundaries of

Lake Merritt, and ... the completion of the boulevard around

Lake Merritt and the improvement of the parks between Eight and Twelfth streets at West Oakland and Bushrod park and

Independence square. " The Democrats and the Municipal League generally agreed with the platform and the nomination of the

Republicans. 6

With the support of the major political parties in

Oakland, Frank Mott easily won the election and began a ten- year reign as Oakland's mayor. For the first five years of

5 Beth Bagwell, Oakland: The Story of a City (Novato: Presidio Press, 1982), 182-183.

6Baker, Past and Present, 239-240. 163

his administration he enjoyed unequivocal support from the city council and people of Oakland. He was later challenged a bit more and in 1911 survived a recall vote. Under his

"aggressive leadership," however, the administration became the "very model of progressive city government." The people of Oakland "were proud of all that was accomplished under h 1m.'" 7

Immediately in 1905, Mott commissioned Charles

Mulford Robinson, a renowned landscape architect, to create a plan for making Oakland a more beautiful city. Robinson studied Oakland's physical attributes and submitted his plan to the civic leaders in 1906. Within the plan he articulated his philosophy upon which he based his suggestions to the city. He believed that city building was a science as well as an art, and that aesthetics had to be combined with practicality. In his words, city building "has to do also with social, moral, commercial and industrial problems, for the beautifying of a city is not artistically done and, therefore not well done, unless it incidentally helps to solve such questions." He further stated that such problems

7 Ibid., 241; Bagwell, Oakland, 182-183; The results of the 1905 election were as follows: Frank K. Mott (Rep., Dem., Mun. League) 5,562 John L. Davie (Independent) 3,217 George E. Randolph (Union Labor) 1,803 Jack London (Socialist) 915 T.H. Montgomery (Prohibitionists) 129 164

"have not been solved properly until their solutions incidentally add to the beauty of the city."8

Therefore, the beauty of a city "is not an ornament to be stuck on. Its essence lies in its structural utility."

With this belief as his foundation, Robinson studied "not merely the superficial beauty of the city, but [also] the convenience of its traffic, the social and economic as certainly as the topographical divisions of the urban territory; the items of fire protection and hygienic requirements, of property values; the future needs as well as the present, and the consistency of the whole plan as well as excellence of details." Such concern for the details was evident throughout Robinson's plan. For example, he suggested in reference to Lake Merritt that the city make a

"requirement that at night each boat shall carry a lantern."

This ordinance would "not only make for increased safety," but would also "add much to the picturesqueness of the spectacle, creating a fairyland scene." 9

In his plan for the beautification of Oakland,

Robinson expressed his pleasure with the potential of Lake

Merritt. He described the lake, with "bare bluffs on its

8Charles Mulford Robinson, A Plan of Civic Improyement for the City of Oakland, California (Oakland: Oakland Enquirer Publishing Co., 1906), 3.

9 Ibid., 3,5. 165

eastern side, a little plot of oaks on the northern, while almost to its further end the hills stretch down in all their natural beauty," as a "natural park site, marvelously preserved from the builders' hands, and convenient of access." 10

Admiring Lake Merritt's pristine beauty and its wonderful potential as a park site, Robinson devoted much study to improving the lake and its surroundings. He had definite ideas concerning the recurring proposal of a boulevard around the lake. Robinson, in his book Modern

Civic Art written in 1903, argued that the best boundaries for parks were streets rather than buildings. Noting that this was an important consideration, he pointed out that streets were better than neighbors' back yards since they gave the public better access to the park. 11 This concept supported the boulevard idea first proposed by Dr. Samuel

Merritt in 1869 and the civic leaders of Oakland since then.

Therefore, Robinson incorporated the existing remnant of the boulevard into his plan for Oakland and suggested that the city complete the boulevard around the lake.

10 rbid .

llCharles Mulford Robinson, Modern Civic Art, or, The City Made Beautiful, 4th ed. (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1918), 332. 166

Robinson did propose some changes in the existing boulevard. He judged that the boulevard was too wide and straight and suggested that the city construct a bridle path alongside the street to narrow it somewhat. He also wrote that the city should insert some small curves and detours in the road to "take away the appearance of railroad directness

--which is not desirable on a park drive where people go to spend time, not to save it.,,12

Another basic premise on which Robinson based his plan was that the boundary of a park should be "just beyond the landscape's natural frame where this is possible, and elsewhere to conceal it with heavy irregular planting." With this done, then "no sharply defining line may be seen and ... the park may seem to have that indefiniteness of extent which cannot fail, of itself, to be pleasing to the cramped dwellers in a city.,,13

With this general rule in mind, Robinson suggested that the city purchase the hills along the eastern shore of

Lake Merritt and the "low, filled in land at the head of the lake between Pleasant Valley road and Lake Shore avenue." He also recommended that the city plant some bushes and flowers

12Robinson, A Plan.of Civic Improvement, 5.

13 Ibid., 5-6. 167

between the existing boulevard and the lake and build a broad gravel walk along the shore. 14

Robinson noted that the "boulevard may be properly carried around the lake, skirting the shore as fast as the land can be secured." Adams Point, however, "with its grove of oaks," was an exception. He noted that it was "much too fine a pleasure and picnic ground to be cut into by a drive."

Advising the city to continue the lakeshore boulevard along the line of Grand Avenue, as it existed at that time, he asserted that Oakland "must certainly obtain" Adams Point. 15

Not limiting himself to a discussion of the Lake

Merritt's boundaries and the boulevard, Robinson also stated that the city should encourage boating on the lake by

"erecting an artistic boathouse on the Twelfth Street margin and letting the concession." More than that, he suggested that on one of the other shores, "more remote from the tide of business, there should be a bandstand, that the people of

Oakland may have among their other pleasures the enjoyment of music heard at evening over the water. ,,16

Robinson ended his report with a question that had plagued the people of Oakland since the concept of the parks

14 Ibid .

15 Ibid., 5.

16Ibid . 168

and boulevard was first brought up. He argued that this was

"a critical time in Oakland's history. It is to choose its destiny." He then challenged the people by asking: "Shall

[Oakland] be beautiful as well as large and busy; or shall it with its growing size become commonplace and at last ugly?,,17

The voters of Oakland had heard that same query for the previous fifteen years. This time, though, the setting of the election was more conducive to a favorable result.

Mayor Mott incorporated Robinson's plan for the beautification of Oakland into his goals for the city. Mott worked on fulfilling Robinson's many suggestions throughout his ten-year service as Oakland's mayor. The publication of

Robinson's plan helped establish the setting in which the successful bond election of 1907 took place.

While Mayor Mott worked on establishing his administration and its goals for the city, the earthquake that devastated San Francisco on April 18, 1906, inadvertently helped him in attaining his objectives for

Oakland. The earthquake caused extensive damage in San

Francisco, but little in Oakland. Mayor Mott effectively led the people of Oakland in giving assistance to its neighbor across the bay. Oakland sent people, equipment, and supplies to help fight the raging fires that lasted for three days in

17 Ibid., 20. 169

San Francisco. More than 200,000 people fled the disaster and sought refuge in the cities across the bay. The kindness of the citizens of the East Bay was evident in their "setting up camps in parks and churches, and taking many into private homes." The army quickly set up a special refugee camp at

Adams Point near Lake Merritt. According to the historian

Beth Bagwell, Adams Point had remained "undeveloped ... a pleasant picnic ground covered with oak trees. The army put in water mains and sewers and erected a tent city, in a massive feat of organization. "18

After the earthquake was over and the accompanying fires were extinguished, many of the refugees decided to remain in the East Bay. Bagwell noted that "tens of thousands [of the refugees] decided to stay in Oakland.

Businesses came, too; their temporary emergency quarters in

Oakland became permanent. The earthquake marked the start of an enormous surge in civic development." 19

After dealing with the effects of the earthquake,

Mayor Mott wasted little time in putting his plan for the improvement of Oakland into effect. The city council called a special election for January 14, 1907, in which the people

18Elinor Richey, The Ultimate Victorians of the Continental Side of San Francisco Bay (Berkeley: Howell-NOrth Books, 1970), 148; Bagwell, Oakland, 178.

19Bagwell, Oakland, 179 170

of the city were asked to vote on the passage of bonds for the acquisition of eleven different parcels of land and their improvement for the use of parks. The total amount of bonds in the election was, for the time, an imposing $992,000 (see map on page 158).

The Oakland Tribune wholeheartedly supported the proposal for bonds. It argued passionately that this issue was "the people's cause. It is Oakland's fight for progress and development. It represents her aspiration for beauty spots and breathing spaces harmonizing with the wealth, taste and ambition of her inhabitants." The paper's frustration with past failures was evident when it noted that this bond proposal was "presenting anew a hope that has long been deferred to the detriment of the city's growth and 20 adornment."

Although requiring a two-thirds majority for passage, the bond issue passed with a ratio of nearly five to one.

There was an extremely low turnout of the voters for the election. The Tribune estimated that only about fifteen percent of the registered voters actually voted and offered two explanations of this oddity. It noted that the day of the election was "one of the stormiest and most disagreeable days of an unusually stormy and disagreeable winter," thus

200akland Tribune, 3 January 1907, 6. 171

keeping many people from voting. It also asserted that the the low voter turnout was due to "the fact that public sentiment was so unanimous that the success of the bonds was regarded as a foregone conclusion."21

Mayor Mott executed a tremendous influence in the success of the 1907 election. He forcefully defended the concept of bonds and eradicated arguments that had played a negative role in previous elections. His opinions were published in an article in Sunset magazine in November 1907.

He contended that it is "axiomatic that if any city wishes to retain its prestige, it must keep its public improvements abreast, or a little in advance, of private enterprise." He noted that when private citizens and businesses can erect great office buildings and provide employment for thousands of people, "it is the duty of municipalities to take the necessary steps toward securing suitable parks, playgrounds, museums, and other amusements for the enjoyment and education of their citizens."22

Recognizing the responsibility of the city to secure parks and other amusements for the people, Mott hastened to defend the concepts of bonds against critics who argued that it was unfair to saddle future generations with debt. Mott

21 Ibid., 15 January 1907, 6. 22 Frank K. Mott, "Oakland's Civic Improvement," Sunset, 20 (November 1907): 93. 172

steadfastly asserted "it is only just that future generations should pay for some of the benefits to be enjoyed by them through the foresight and paternal solicitude of their immediate ancestors." He continued by noting that the "plan of issuing bonds, running forty years or so, on which only moderate interest is payable, is an equitable system by which municipalities may come into immediate possession of great public betterments and utilities, and yet let the future generation pays its just share of the debt.,,23

Mott was comfortable with placing Oakland into debt with the bonds for parks. He acted on the philosophy that a

"city without a fairly large bonded indebtedness is generally a city without much enterprise." For example, its "people are apt to be too contented in a state of ease and inaction to look forward and undertake plans that will make the daily life of coming generations as pleasant at least as present­ day existence. ,,24

He also recognized the urgency of purchasing the land right away since the population was increasing. As the population increased, he believed, "it naturally follows that land will enhance in value." Therefore, when a city "can now obtain large pieces of suitable property at reasonable

23 Ibid .

24 Ibid . 173

prices, in years to come it will be almost impossible to secure them, as they will be required to meet the demands of private investment and development. "25

Under Mott's popular leadership, the voters of

Oakland finally passed a major hurdle in civic improvement.

The lengthy process contained many elements common to cities across the nation during that time period. Many other remarkable changes took place during Mott's reign that greatly benefited Lake Merritt and its surrounding area.

After the first burst of energy, however, the process slowed again amidst controversy during the administration of Mayor

John L. Davie (1915-1930). Fortunately for today's people of

Oakland who have the opportunity to enjoy Lake Merritt, though, the ambitious civic leaders of earlier years perservered and established the park that is often described as the jewel of Oakland.

25 Ibid . 174

Mayor Frank K. Mott

Mayor John L. Davie

(Photographs courtesy of Oakland Public Library) Epilogue

With the passage of the improvement bonds in the election of 1907, Oakland accomplished the first major step in the further developments of Lake Meritt and its surrounding area. In the subsequent years, the park enjoyed the special attention and support of two strong mayors who reigned over Oakland for a total of thirty years, Mayor Frank

K. Mott (1905-1915) and Mayor John L. Davie (1915-1930) (see photographs on page 174). Once the initial stride was completed, Oakland's populace seemed to become more appreciative of the city's natural spot of beauty and agreed relatively quickly to more expenditures for improvements.

During Mott's administration, for example, Oakland's voters passed bond issues worth approximately $8 million for various civic improvement projects. First of all, Mott made the purchases of land that were approved in the 1907 election. Later in 1907 he arranged the purchase of the ethnological collection of Dr. John Rabe that formed the nucleus of a city museum ,located in the Josiah Stanford mansion on Lake Merritt (now the Camron-Stanford House) .

Mott established the city's first playground commission,

175 176

which had its first meeting on January 8, 1909, and the first park commission, which first met later that year on April 23. 1

Oakland finally realized its "dream of more than twenty years" by the opening of Lakeside Park on Lake Merrit. After the construction of the boathouse and bandstand, the city provided band concerts in the park every summer Sunday afternoon beginning in 1912. In that same year the city also outlawed swimming in Lake Merritt, because of pollution and the awkward situation of people changing their clothes in the bushes near the lake. The pergola at the northeast end of

Lake Merritt was completed at a cost of $17,000 in 1913, the same year in which the voters approved municipal bonds for the construction of a new city hall, built on the site of the old one, and a civic auditorium, constructed on landfill south of the Twelfth-Street dam overlooking Lake Merritt.

Mott's administration was responsible for many other changes within the city, such as settling the waterfront controversy that began with Horace Carpentier in 1852 and securing the adoption of a new city charter on December 8, 1910. 2

1Beth Bagwell, Oakland: The Story of a City (Novato: Presidio Press, 1982), 183; Mayor Frank K. Mott, "Oakland's Civic Improvement," Sunset 20 (November 1907): 94; Jones, DeWitt, ed. "Oakland Parks and Playgrounds," typescript (Oakland: The Oakland Parks and Recreation Departments, 1936?), 107-108, 222, 232.

2Bagwell, Oakland, 183, 208; Pacific Gas and Electric Progress 51 (May 1974): 8; Frank C. Merritt, History of Alameda County, California vol. 1 (Chicago: The S, J. Clarke 177

Mott's successor, John L. Davie, also successfully completed many civic improvements during his lengthy stay in office. He loved Lake Merritt "as if it were his own private lagoon," although he fervently believed that the park belonged to all the people of Oakland. Every day he rowed on the lake, and he took "a personal interest" in the ducks.

When an oil spill in 1915 resulted in a massive bird rescue operation, city officials supported the program and continued its existence. In 1923 Oakland authorities built a small artificial island in the lake to offer a haven in which the birds could nest and to entice other species to remain in the wildlife refuge. The success of the refuge brought an extensive scientific study of the birds, beginning in 1926, by tagging them and tracing their migrations. Davie's administration was also responsible for dredging Lake Merritt and using the silt to create one hundred acres of land south of the auditorium, and completing the boulevard around the

Lake Merritt in 1922--a section between Oak and Harrison that caused much controversy over its cost of $43,000. 3

Publishing co., 1928), 271; Architect and Engineer (January 1945): 15; Although Mott was a popular and successful mayor, he was also forced to deal with a recall election in 1911.

3Bagwell, Oakland, 207-208; John L. Davie, My Own Story (Oakland: Oakland Post-Enquirer, 1931; reprint as His Honor. the Buckaroo, Reno: Jack Herzberg, 1988), 167-168 (page references are to reprint edition); Bill O'Brien, "The Restless Shore," Express (29 February 1987): 12; Helen G. Jefferson, "What Does a City Naturalist Do? At California's Oldest State Game Refuge, Paul Covel is the First Full-Time 178

Davie '-s self-acclaimed "pet" project, however, was the plan for creating a clean salt water system for Lake Merritt that would make the lake safe and available for swimming.

Many people continued to swim in the lake and change clothes in the bushes, although both activities had been illegal since 1912. Davie failed in his attempt to pump clean salt water from deep in the bay into a protected section of the lake, but the idea persisted for years. In 1938 the Oakland city council discussed the possibility of making a swimming area in the lake but decided that the estimated cost of

$300,000 and the complexity of the scheme was prohibitive.

The proposal remained alive, however, through World War II, when city officials began "to daydream about what they wanted to do as soon as the war was over." Oakland never did realize Davie's pet project, and so boating remains the chief recreational activity on the lake. 4

Mayor Davie achieved his successess with Oakland's park system through much controversy. As the park and playground departments grew, "with steadily increasing appropriations for maintenance and expansion," opposition to the

"progressive" programs also developed and became more

Naturalist to be Employed by a Pacific Coast City," Audubon Magazine 54 (November-December 1952): 356; Howard S. Sipe, "Winter Sanctuary," National Motorist 21 (September 1944): 17. 4Davie, His Honor, 168; Bagwell, Oakland, 208-209; san Francisco Chronicle, 12 January 1938, 13. 179

formidable. According to the historian DeWitt Jones, for about a decade, especially during Davie's administration,

"almost every fiscal appropriation for park purposes aroused heated controversy between members of the city council."

Every proposed purchase of new park lands "became the target for disgruntled and reactionary forces; for interests sponsoring rival acreage"; and for politicians who were overly concerned with spending money. As conflict dominated the city council, the park board was embroiled with charges of graft and incompetence. In 1924, the conflict climaxed with Mayor Davie demanding the resignation of the entire

Board of Park Directors, "whom he himself had appointed. "5

With issues such as these to study, Lake Merritt's history is a fascinating field of study; more complex than one would probably expect. Such a study is especially relevant to an Oakland citizen today who is interested in preserving and improving the lake and its surrounding area.

The manner in which Oakland's earlier inhabitants dealt with the issues surrounding proposed civic improvements provides insight into current issues with which we are struggling today as we continue to nurture Lake Merritt for the enjoyment of future generations.

5Jones, "Oakland Parks," 220-221; see pages 220-231 for more information on the quarrels between Mayor Davie and the Park Board. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources: Books

Calderwood, G. W. and G. T. Loofbourow. Oakland, "Athens of the Pacific," and Facts and Figures of Alameda County. Oakland: G. T. Loofbourow and Co., 1896.

Davie, John L. My Own Story. Oakland: Oakland Post-Enquirer, 1931; reprint as His Honor. The Buckaroo. Reno: Jack Herzberg, 1988.

Halley, William. The Centennial Year Book of Alameda County, California. Oakland: William Halley, 1876.

Husted's Oakland, Alameda and Berkeley Directory Giving Name, Occupation, and Residence of all Adult Persons, Societies, Associations, City and County Government, ~. San Francisco: F. M. Husted, annual directories from 1888-1907.

Illustrated Directory Company. The Illustrated Directory of Oakland, California. Oakland: Oakland Enquirer Publishing Co., 1896.

Olmsted, Frederick Law. Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns. Cambridge: Riverside Press, 1870; reprint, New York: Arno Press, 1970.

Robinson, Charles Mulford. A Plan of Civic Improvement for the City of Oakland, California. Oakland: Oakland Enquirer Publishing Co., 1906 .

----. The Improvement of Towns and Cities, or, The Practical Basis of Civic Aesthetics. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1901.

Modern Civic Art, or, The City Made Beautiful. 4th ed. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1918 .

. The Width and Arrangement of Streets: A Study ---~ in Town Planning. New York: The Engineering News Publishing Co., 1911.

Thompson and West. Historical Atlas of Alameda Country, California. Oakland, 1878. Bicentennial reprint. Valley Publishers, Fresno, 1976.

180 181

Newspapers

Oakland EnQuirer. 1888-1907.

Oakland Herald. 1904.

Oakland Tribune. 1888-1907.

Oakland Times. 1890.

Oakland Saturday Night. October-November, 1898.

A General Historical, Statistical and Descriptive Review of Oakland, California; Her Resources, Advantages, Location and Business Interests. Oakland: The Oakland Daily Evening Tribune, 1890.

Government Proceedings

California Bureau of Labor Statistics. Second Biennial Report, 1885-1886. Sacramento: State Printing Office, 1887 .

----. Eleventh Biennial Report, 1904. Sacramento: State Printing Office, 1904 .

----. Thirteenth Biennial Report, 1907-1908. Sacramento: State Printing Office, 1908.

California State Legislature. The Journal of the Assembly During the Twentieth Session of the Legislature of the State of California. 1873-1874. Sacramento: G. H. Springer, State Printer, 1874.

____. The Journal of the Senate During the Twentieth Session of the Legislature of the State of California, 1873-1874. Sacramento: G. H. Springer, State Printer, 1874.

____. The Statutes of California: Passed at the Fifth Session of the Legislature. Begun on the Fourth of January, 1854, and ended on the Fifteenth Day of May, 1854, at the Cities of Benicia and Sacramento. Sacramento: B. B. Redding, State Printer, 1854. 182

----· The Statutes of California, Passed at the Twentieth Session of the Legislature, 1873-1874, Begun on Monday, the first Day of December, eighteen hundred and seventy-three, and ended on Monday, the thirtieth day of March, eighteen hundred and seventy-four. Sacramento: G. H. Springer, State Printer, 1874.

California. State Park Commission. Report of State Park Survey of California. By Frederick Law Olmsted. Sacramento: California State Printing Office, 1929.

Oakland, California. Bureau of Public Administration. Regional Parks and Open Space: Selected Conference Papers. Francis W. Herring, ed. June, 1961.

----· City Council. General Municipal Ordinances of the City of Oakland. Cal. in effect January 1, 1895. Compiled by Fred L. Button. Oakland: Enquirer Publishing Co., 1895 .

----. Minutes of Meetings held September 13. 1886 to December 31, 1888. Volume B. Office of the City Clerk of Oakland, California.

----· Department of Public Works. Minutes of Meetings held April 7, 1891 to September 12, 1893. Volume 2. Office of the City Clerk of Oakland, California.

----. Report on Lake Merritt Salt Water Pumping Project. Oakland, 1920. Blueprints.

----· Park Commission. The Park System of Oakland, California. Report. Oakland, 1910.

Report of the Board of Park and Boulevard Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri. Kansas City, Missouri: n.p., 1893, pp. 9-15. In The American City: A Documentary History, ed. Charles N. Glaab, 257-263. Homewood: The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1963.

United States Government. Department of Commerce and Labor. Bureau of the Census. E. Dana Durand, Director. Thirteenth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1910; Abstract of the Census. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1913. 183

-----. Department of the Interior. Census Office. "Census Reports: vol. 1, Population." Twelfth Census of the United States, Taken in the Year 1900. Washington, United States Census Office, 1901.

-----. Abstract of the Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1902.

Unpublished Material

Alameda County. County Clerk. "Election Records: Affidavits of Registration: 1896-1921." alphabetical order, 2910 volumes. California State University, Hayward.

Dingee, William J. "Map of Oakland and Vicinity". San Francisco: H. S. Crocker Co., 1892.

Dutton, J. W. and Soule, Frank. "A Summary of Facts and Figures Relating to the Water Supply of Cities." Oakland: Citizens' Committee of One Hundred of Oakland, 1890.

Huntington, Collis Potter. "Collis P. Huntington Papers, 1856-1901." Sanford, North Carolina: Microfilming Corporation of America, 1978. California State University, Hayward.

"Maps of City of Oakland: Blocks and Tracts." Combined and Rebound by the Works Progress Administration, 1940. Oakland Public Library.

Thomas Brothers. "Tract and Block Number Map of Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, Piedmont, Albany, and Emeryville." Oakland: Thomas Brothers, 1925.

Articles

Gibbons, William F. "The Redwoods in the Oakland Hills" in Erython 1 (August 1893): 161-166, reprinted in "Oakland Miscellany," vol. 1, typed transcripts of articles from various sources collected by Reference Department, Oakland Free Library, 1947.

"The Masonic Widows' and Orphans' Home of California: Official Program of the Festival at Mechanics' Pavilion, San Francisco; May 9-14, 1898." San Francisco: Louis Roesch Co., 1898. 184

Olmsted, Frederick L. "Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns." Journal of Social Science 3 (November, 1871): 10-16, 19-25. In The American City: A Documentary History, ed. Charles N. Glaab, 246-257. Homewood: The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1963.

Secondary Sources: Books

Appelbaum, Stanley. The Chicago World's Fair of 1893: A Photographic Record. New York: Dover Publications, 1980.

Bagwell, Beth. Oakland: The Story of a City. Novato: Presidio Press, 1982.

Baker, Joseph E. ed. Past and Present of Alameda County, California. vol. 1. Chicago: The S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1914.

Blake, Everts I. ed. Greater Oakland, 1911; A Volume Dealing with the Big Metropolis on the Shores of San Francisco ~. Oakland: Pacific, 1911 (?).

Clark, George T. Leland Stanford: War Governor of California, Railroad Builder, and Founder of Stanford University. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1931.

Clary, Raymond H. The Making of Golden Gate Park: 1865-1906. San Francisco: Don't Call It Frisco Press, 1980.

Covel, Paul F. People Are for the Birds. Oakland: Western Interpretive Press, 1978.

Cross, Ira B. A History of the Labor Movement in California. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1935.

Fein, Albert ed. Landscape into Cityscape: Frederick Law Olmsted's Plan for a Greater New York City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967.

Fredman, L. E. The Australian Ballot: The Story of an American Reform. n.p.: Michigan State University Press, 1968.

Freeman, Leslie J. Alameda County Past and Present. San Leandro: Press of the San Leandro Reporter, 1946. 185

Glaab, Charles N., ed. The American City: A Documentary History. The Dorsey Series in American History, ed. Irvin G. Wyllie. Homewood: The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1963.

Glaab, Charles N. and Theodore A. Brown. A History of Urban America. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967.

Grimm, Sergei N. Physical Urban Planning: System of General Concepts and Principal Features. Syracuse, New York: School of Architecture, Syracuse University, 1961.

Guinn, J. M. History of the State of California and Biographical Record of Oakland and Environs. 2 vols. Los Angeles: Historic Record Co., 1907.

Hinkel, E. J. and W. E. McCann, eds. Oakland 1852-1938: Some Phases of the Social, Political and Economic History of Oakland, California. 2 vols. Oakland: The Oakland Public Library, 1939.

Hittel, Theodore H. History of California. vol. 4. San Francisco: N. J. Stone and Company, 1897.

Hofstadter, Richard, ed. The Progressive Movement: 1900-1915. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1963.

Kahn, Judd. Imperial San Francisco: Politics and Planning in an American City, 1897-1906. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979.

Knight, Robert E. L. Industrial Relations in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1900-1918. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960.

Koford, Henning. Dr. Samuel Merritt: His Life and Achievements. Oakland: The Kennedy Co. Printers, 1938.

Larson, Lawrence H. The Urban West at the End of the Frontier. Lawrence: The Regents Press of Kansas, 1978.

Merritt, Frank Clinton. History of Alameda County, California. vol. 1. Chicago: The S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1928.

Mowry, George E. The California Progressives. Chronicles of California. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1951. 186

Olin, Spencer C., Jr. California's Prodigal Sons: Hiram Johnson and the Progressives. 1911-1917. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968.

Richey, Elinor. The Ultimate Victorians of the Continental Side of San Francisco Bay. Berkeley: Howell-North Books, 1970.

Rice, Richard B., William A. Bullough, and Richard J. Orsi. The Elusive Eden: A New History of Califorinia. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988.

Robinson, William Wilcox. Land in California: The Story of Mission Lands. Ranchos. SQuatters. Mining Claims, Railroad Grants, Land Scrip, and Homesteads. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1948.

Schmitt, Peter J. Back to Nature: the Arcadian Myth in Urban America. New York, Oxford University Press, 1969.

Scott, Mel. American City Planning Since 1890. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969 .

----. The San Francisco Bay Area: A Metropolis in Perspective. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.

Thomas, Mabel W. and Ethel Blumann. Index to the Centennial Year Book of Alameda County, California, by William Halley. Oakland: Oakland Public Library, 1947.

Wilson, William H. The City Beautiful Movement. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1989.

Wollenberg, Charles. Golden Gate Metropolis: Perspective on Bay Area History. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, 1985.

Wood, M. W. History of Alameda County, California. Including Its Geology, Topography, Soil, and Productions. Oakland: M. W. Wood, 1883. Reprinted 1969. Holmes Book Co., Oakland.

Articles

Bangs, E. Geoffrey. "A Civic Center for Lake Merritt, Oakland, California." Architect and Engineer 160 (January 1945): 14-20. 187

Burgess, Sherwood D. "The Forgotten Redwoods of the East Bay." California Historical Society Ouarterly 30 (March 1951): 1-14.

Conmy, Peter Thomas. "The Encinal de Temescal ...the Beginnings of Oakland." California Herald 4 (June 1957): 5, 16.

"Oakland, Queen of the Contra Costa." Grizzly Bear 69 (September 1941): 3, 5.

Dixon, Joseph S. "Wild Ducks as Winter Guests in a City Park." National Geographic Magazine 36 (October 1919): 331-342.

Flint, Leslie. "The Heart of Oakland: A Walking Guide to Lake Merritt." Pamphlet. n.d .

----. Lakeside: A Short History. Oakland: Oakland Heritage Alliance, 1982.

Geiger, J. C. "One Hundred Years of Public Health in the City of Oakland." Oak Leaves 6 (20 March 1953): 2-4.

Hays, Samuel P. "The Politics of Reform in Municipal Government in the Progressive Era." Pacific Northwest Ouarterly 55 (October 1964): 157-169.

"It Keeps the City at Arm's Length." Sunset 129 (August 1962): 140-142.

Jefferson, Helen G. "What does a City Naturalist Do? At California's Oldest State Game Refuge, Paul Covel is the First Full-time Naturalist to be Employed by a Pacific Coast City." Audubon Magazine 54 (November­ December 1952): 354-357.

"Lake Merritt Refuge Named U. S. Landmark." The Gull 45 (August 1963): 42.

"Lake Merritt -- the Hub of Oakland." Pictorial California 33 (Summer 1958): 14-15.

"Lakeside Park." PG & E Progress 51 (May 1974), 8.

McGrath, Mike. "Stanching the Stench: Muckraking Lake Merritt." Express (7 August 1981): 3. 188

Mott, Mayor Frank K. "Oakland's Civic Improvement." Sunset 20 (November 1907): 93-104.

O'Brien, Bill. "The Restless Shore." Express (29 February 1987): 1, 10-13 .

----. "Who's Killing the Geese of Lake Merritt?" Express (2 4 Ap r ill987): 3.

"Oakland Feeds 8,000 Ducks Annually." Pacific Municipalities 46 (January 1932): 21.

Oakland Chamber of Commerce. "Capitalizing on One of City's Finest Assets." Oakland Outlook 14 (12 August 1935): 1.

Orsi, Richard J. "The Octopus Reconsidered: The Southern Pacific and Agricultural Modernization in California, 1865-1915." California Historical Ouarterly 54 (Fall 1975): 197-220.

Rodgers, Daniel T. "In Search of Progressivism." Reviews in American History 10 (December 1982): 113-132.

Sher, Sandra. "Boulevard Around Lake Merritt: It Took Awhile." The Museum of California (November-December 1987): 21-24.

Sipe, Howard S. "Winter Sanctuary." National Motorist 21 (September 1944): 5, 17.

Stearn, Edwin. "A Sea Park in a City's Heart: the Unique Jewel of Oakland's Park System." Sunset 22 (January 1909): 109-110.

Unpublished

Buckley, Homer W. "A Chronology of Legislation Specifically Naming the Municipality of Oakland from 1849 to and Including 1933." An Oakland Miscellany. vol 2. Oakland Library Reference Department, 1947.

Conmy, Peter T. The Beginnings of Oakland, California, A. U. ~. Pamphlet. Oakland: Oakland Public Library, 1961. 189

Hoffman, Roberick W. and Gary W. Shawley. Lake Merritt Restoration Project. October 1981, for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX and Staff Water Resources Control Board. A Draft Copy, 1981.

Jones, DeWitt, ed. "Oakland Parks and Playgrounds." Oakland: The Oakland Parks and Recreation Departments, 1936(?). Typewritten.

Mott, Frank K. The Creation, History and Development of Lake Merritt. Written for the Lake Merritt Breakfast Club and Delivered by the Author at One of Their Meetings in October 1936. Typewritten. Oakland Public Library.

Oakland, California. Elections: 1852 to the Present. Office of the City Clerk: July, 1988.

Oakland Public Library. An Oakland Chronology: Compiled by the Oakland Public Library History Division during the Centennial Celebration of the Incorporation of the Town of Oakland May 4, 1852. 2nd ed., revised. Oakland: Oakland Public Library, 1952.

Pitt, Robert and Martin Bozeman. Lake Merritt Management Plan: Prepared for City of Oakland, Department of Public Works, May, 1979. San Francisco: Woodward­ Clyde Consultants, 1979.

Theile, Jill and Bill Theile. Adams Point: A Short History. Oakland: Oakland Heritage Alliance, 1986. APPENDIX A

DEED OF 1891

The deed from the Waterfront Company to the city of

Oakland for the boulevard property had the following provisions:

1. That the property shall be forever used only for a public boulevard and public water lake and pleasure park.

2. That said city shall construct and forever maintain a public boulevard in and around Lake Merritt.

3. That said city shall forever maintain a dam in or upon Twelfth street in such a manner that the waters of the estuary of San Antonio shall keep the waters of said lake substantially as they now are.

Should the land now covered by the waters of said lake from any cause become dry land and waters of the estuary be permanently prevented from entering and keeping said lake in existence, then and in that event the lands herein described shall revert to the Oakland Water Front Company, and it may take possession thereof.

190 191

s. T. Gage signed as president of the company and C. E.

Green as secretary of the company.

The deed is dated November 6, 1891, and was acknowledged befoe E. B. Ryan, notary public.

The consideration was $1. 1

1 Oakland En~uirer, 16 November 1891, 5. APPENDIX B

DEED OF 1874

An Act granting certain salt, marsh and tide lands of the State to the City of Oakland.

{Approved February 18, 1874]

The People of the State of California, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

Section 1. The interest of the State of California, in those lands situate in the City of Oakland, known and described as lots numbered one to nine, inclusive, in section thirty-six, and lots eleven to fourteen, inclusive, in section twenty-five, in township one south, range four west,

Mount Diablo meridian, United States survey, as the same are laid down on the official map, entitled "Map number three of the salt, marsh and tide lands situate in the County of

Alameda," prepared by order of the Board of Tide Land

Commissioners, and surveyed under the direction of G. F.

Allardt, Chief Engineer of the Tide Land Survey, is hereby granted to the City of Oakland, in trust, for the use of the people thereof, and of the people of the State, as a water park.

192 193

Section 2. The City of Oakland shall have no power to convey, incumber, or lease any of the said lands, or grant the use of any of the same, for any purpose whatever, but shall cause the same to be kept and maintained for the purposes mentioned in the first section of this Act, and for none other. In case the said city shall attempt to convey, incumber, lease, or grant any use of any said lands, the same shall revert to the people of the State; and the Attorney

General may bring an action to enforce a reconveyance of the same to the State.

Section 3. This Act shall take effect immediately.l

1 California State Legislature, The Statutes of California: Passed at the Fifth Session of the Legislature. Begun on Monday. the first Day of December. eighteen hundred and seventy-three. and ended on Monday. the thirtieth day of March, eighteen hundred and seventy-four (Sacramento: G, H, Springer, State Printer, 1874), 132-133, APPENDIX C

AGREEMENT OF 1890

The following is the deed of agreement between the city of

Oakland and certain owners of property bordering on Lake

Merritt:

Whereas, Lake Merritt, in the city of Oakland, has been granted to said city for a water park; and

Whereas, Said lake is rapidly shoaling, according to the

official report of the Board of Public Works at the rate of

22,000 cubic yards per annum, and that in a few years its

value as a flushing reservoir will be seriously impaired; and

Whereas, For sanitary and other reasons it is necessary

to dredge said lake, and at the same time prevent in future

the further deposit of foreign matter in the water of said

lake; and

Whereas, An artificial roadway or boulevard, constructed around said lake, partially within the waters thereof, and partially upon the adjoining upland, would furnish a suitable place for depositing the material dredged from said lake, and

at the same time would be the cheapest method of disposing of the same; and

194 195

Whereas, The construction of said boulevard would to a great degree prevent the further accumulation of foreign material in said lake, and would be at the same time an ornament to the city and a great convenience to the inhabitants thereof; and

Whereas, The construction of said boulevard has been recommended by the Board of Public Works, and is favored, as is believed, by a large majority of the citizens of the municipality as a work of utility and necessity; and

Whereas, William F. Boardman, civil engineer, has made a survey of the line of said proposed boulevard, and has made a map thereof, and plans and general specifications have been prepared by said Boardman and T. W. Morgan, civil engineer, which, together with the map and field notes of said survey are hereto annexed and made a part thereof; and

Whereas, the Council of the City of Oakland has passed an ordinance defining and describing the land necessary and proper to be acquired for a public boulevard according to said survey; and

Whereas, it has been feared that it would be difficult to obtain the right of way for said boulevard, and that it might lead to costly litigation and great delay; and

Whereas, the undersigned are propertyholders in severalty upon the line of said proposed boulevard, as described in said ordinance and in some places said boulevard 196

takes portions of the same, and at other places leaves small strips of overflowed land between the line of said proposed boulevard and the property of the undersigned; and

Whereas, the undersigned are desirous to facilitate the construction of said boulevard, at as early a day as possible;

Now, therefore, in order to settle forever all questions that might otherwise arise between the City of Oakland and the owners of land bordering on Lake Merritt in regard to riparian rights and the right of way for said boulevard, the undersigned, each for himself alone, upon the performance of the conditions hereinafter mentioned, and not otherwise, hereby dedicates all his right, title and interest in and to all the lands within the lines of the proposed boulevard as defined in the annexed map, for the purpose of a public boulevard.

Provided, first--That the city of Oakland for the purpose of adjusting the lines shall convey the strips or parcels of land that lie between the outer line of said boulevard and the land owned by the undersigned persons respectively who are the legal owners of the several pieces of land between which and the outer line of said boulevard pieces of land may remain. That is to say, each such owner or owners of the legal title to a piece of land between which and the outer line of said boulevard, there shall remain or 197

be a strip or piece of land shall be entitled to a conveyance of such strip or piece,

But no street shall be so conveyed nor shall the lands on said map marked "Proposed Park" be so conveyed.

Provided, second--That the city of Oakland, shall at its own cost within six months from January 1, 1891, commence the construction of said boulevard and shall within three years complete the bulkhead and fill the roadbed with material dredged from Lake Merritt, and shall within three years thereafter complete said boulevard according to the map, plans and specifications hereto annexed; and

Provided, third--That said boulevard shall always be maintained as a public park, nor shall any franchise, or special privileges or licenses be granted thereon, nor shall any wooden [unclear] be constructed across said boulevard, or lake, but this shall not prevent the city under the restrictions aforesaid from granting franchises to cable or motor companies to cross said boulevard or lake at any point deemed best for public convenience.

Witness our hands this - day of October, 1890.

The signers of the above are:

Edson F. Adams John C. Adams Hannah J. Adams Julia P. A. Prather George W. Grayson A. K. P. Harmon George H. Wheaton J. B. Randol Alameda County Land Company E. H. Woolsey E. D. Jones Juan Gallegos George D. Metcalf W. G. Henshaw W. J. Dingee C. M. Goodall 198

S. R. Shafter Berta S. Shafter Eva R. Shafter Mary L. Orr Emma S. Howard Elsie E. Gregory Sarah A. Kendall Helen M. Stanford J. B. Watson Philelia Watson Nellie Snefsinger J. R. Glascock Horace C. Watson Sisters of the Catherine M. Garcelon Sacred Name of Jesus and Maryl

1 Oakland EnQuirer 19 November 1890, 3. APPENDIX D

LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE OF EIGHT: 1898

It is proposed that the city of Oakland shall issue

$320,000 twenty-four year four per cent bonds, the proceeds to be used as follows:

For the purchase of Adams Point (62 acres) , $240,000.

For the improvement of the same, $50,000.

For the improvement of West Oakland Park, $20,000.

For the improvement of Independence Square, East

Oakland, $10,000.

If these bonds are issued, the annual tax therefor for the first ten years will be two and three-quarters cents on each $100 worth of assessable property within the city.

A property owner paying taxes on $1,000 at the rate of

$1.10 (the average city rate for the last ten years) now pays

$11 tax. When the park bonds are issued he will pay $11.27.

This will be a tax of only twenty-seven cents a year, a total payment of $270 distributed over ten years.

If this tax-payer should go to Golden Gate Park, San

Francisco, three times a year because Oakland has no park,

199 200

the cost for his family of three persons would be $2.70 per year for fares alone, or $27 in ten years.

For the second ten years, while the park bonds are being redeemed, the tax on $1,000 will be $11.69 1/2. This will be an additional tax of only forty-two and one-half cents per year, or a total payment of $4.25 on each $1,000 worth of property, distributed over the second ten years.

This statement is based upon figures furnished by the

City Auditor.

The area of the proposed park on the north shore of Lake

Merritt is sixty-two acres.

It has a frontage of nearly one mile on Lake Merritt, being one-third of the frontage around the whole lake.

It has also a north frontage of three-fourths of a mile on a proposed street which the owners of the land have donated. This street is equivalent to seven acres and is to be carved out of the property adjoining, and will not trench upon the sixty-two acres bought by the city.

Westlake Park, the pride of the city of Los Angeles, contains only thirty-six acres, including the lake.

The area of Lake Merritt alone is 180 acres, so that the total area of the land and water in the Oakland park will be two hundred and forty-two acres. 201

The proposed park is located geographically in the center of the city, only three-quarters of a mile from City

Hall.

The following distances have been furnished by the

County Surveyor of Alameda County:

From Adams Point to Sixteenth street station, 11,500 feet; to Twenty-third avenue, 10,500 feet; to Twenty-third avenue station, 11,000 feet; to the southerly line of the city, 7,800 feet; to B street station, Watts tract, 11,200 feet; to Peralta and Twenty-third street, 9,400 feet.

In fact, upon a map of the city of Oakland, made to scale, the proposed park is shown to be nearly in the center of the city, and it is likely to remain so for many years to come.

The saving in car fares alone, because of the advantageous location of the park, will equal three-fourths of the interest on the proposed issue of bonds.

The price at which the land for the proposed park will be sold to the city is $3,870 per acre, or only $16 per front foot.

This land has been surveyed into lots varying from 120 to 200 feet deep, and after taking out the streets, there remains 14,850 front feet of marketable property which is now offered to the city for $240,000. 202

Lots in the vicinity of this tract are being sold for three times the price per front foot charged for this piece of land.

From the southerly side of the proposed park it is only

610 feet to the head of Jackson street, where the land values range from $100 to $150 per front foot.

John A. Britton, J. K. McLean, R. W. Snow, James Moffitt, James P. Taylor W. B. English J. F. W. Sohst, Frank K. Mott Executive Committee1

1 Oakland Tribune, 28 October 1898, 1. APPENDIX E

LETTER ABOUT CENTRAL PARK: 1904

To the People of Oakland:

We, the undersigned, a committee of citizens, selected

for the purpose of making an inspection of the proposed

Central Park site present as our conclusions the following

resolution to which our names are attached, which resolutions

were adopted without a dissenting vote.

Resolved, That the special committee appointed to view

the property proposed for the Central Park after making a

thorough investigation hereby express our unanimous approval

and commendation of the said tract of land for park purposes.

Resolved, That it is the sense of this committee that a

more desirable location for a large and beautiful park site

could not be found anywhere.

Resolved, That it is the judgment of this committee,

after consulation with reliable experts as to real estate values, that the proposed price of $1000 per acre is a fair value for said land, and that we heartily indorse the plan of the City Council in giving to the people of Oakland an

opportunity to secure this desirable park site while it is

203 204

still within the power of the city to purchase it for, within a few years, it will be so encroached upon by private improvements as to render its acquirement for park purposes an impossibility.

Resolved, That we urge the citizens of Oakland to visit the park site, make a thorough investigation for themselves as to its merits, and be prepared to vote intelligently upon this subject at next Tuesday's election.

(Signed) John Yule, L. G. Burpee, Hugh Hogan, James Maclise, E. R. Tait, J. Tyrrel, John T. Bell, J. C. McMullen, W. E. Gibson, E. P. Vandercook, E. C. Sessions, William J. Laymance, Emil Lehnhardt, W. H. Weilbye, R. A. Jackson, D. C. Brown, Charles H. Taylor, Edwind Stearns, A. H. Schlueter, C. F. Carl F. C. Turner,

It is our opinion that the site is desirable, but as to values we are not prepared to say. We would recommend that all the ridges not in the survey be taken in.

(Signed) Charles W. Petry C. J. Curran

The members of the committee were as follows: Representing the Board of Trade--Hugh Hogan, Emile Lehnhardt and J.

Tyrrell. 205

Merchants' Exchange--W. H. Weilbye, D. C. Brown, A. H.

Schlueter.

Progress Federation--Captain Judge John Yule, Dr. E. R.

Tait and Professor W. E. Gilson.

Labor unions--C. W. Petry of the Central Labor Council

and Secretary C. J. Curran of the Retail Clerks' Association.

Real Estate Association--Charles H. Taylor, E. P.

Vandercook, E. C. Sessions, W. J. Laymance, R. A. Jackson.

From the banks--L. P. Burpee, cashier of the First

National Bank, and Colonel J. C. McMullen of the State

Savings Bank.

Others were C. F. Carl, W. J. Laymance, J. M. Halstead,

C. H. Taylor, W. E. Dickinson, Charles H. Wood, Robert Mott,

Dr. E. J. Bowles, James Maclise, A. H. Schou and others.

The center of the group were Superintendent McLaren of

Golden Gate Park and City Engineer Turner. 1

1 Oakland Herald, 22 September 1904, 1.