THE ORIGIN, RISE AND DECLINE OF THE PEOPLES' PARTY IN SONOMA COUNTY 1890-1898
by Edward Spooner A thesis submitted to Sonoma State University in partial fUlfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in History
Dr. Donald Johns n Copyright 1988
By Edward Spooner
ii AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTER'S THESIS
iii THE ORIGIN, RISE AND DECLINE OF THE POPULIST MOVEMENT IN SONOMA COUNTY 1890-1896 A Thesis· by Edward Spooner ABSTRACT Purpose of Study: To determine the role played by the Populists and the political development of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County during the years of 1890-1896. Procedure: Research in the historical records of Sonoma County, the major publications pertaining to Populism in California, journals, government publications and the major newspapers of Northern California and Sonoma County provided the documentation. Findings: Published accounts of Sonoma County's history and the Populist movement in California fail to mention Sonoma's role in the Populist ITx>vement. Research shows that there was an active Peoples' Party in Sonoma County during the period of 1892-1896. Although it did not play an important role in the lll.micipal politics of cities and townships, it was active in Santa Rosa during the election of 1896, and it did have an effect on the outcome of voter participation in the county elections of 1892, 1894 and 1896. Conclusion: Based on strong documentation in local newspapers, it is clear that the Peoples' Party played an active and important role in Sonoma County during the late 1800's. The evidence makes it clear that the Populists deserve more recognition than they have previously enjoyed in recent county histories. Although the Peoples' Party influenced the outcome of the county elections of 1892, 1894 and 1896 in Sonoma County, this fact has been overlooked because its role in California Populism was one of minor importance.
Chairperson sign ture
M.A. Program: History Sonoma State University iv PREFACE
The specific objective of this paper is to uncover the origins, rise and decline of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County. In order to achieve this goal, the scope of research included Populism at the national, state and county levels. Although the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County lasted only four years and participated in three elections before merging into the Republican, Democratic and Socialist Parties, it had considerable influence on the county's political history during its brief existence. The first three chapters introduce Populism and familiarize the reader with its importance. They also provide background information needed for understanding the findings of this study: there was a relatively successful People's Party in Sonoma CountYj the economic, environmental and demographic conditions of Sonoma County hindered the support for the Peoples' Party; Sonoma Populism largely followed the basic tenets of national and state Populism and embodied the general characteristics inherent in third parties. Chapter one begins by considering the validity, limits and contributions of this study. In addition, it includes the research problems, sources, scope and methodolgy of the paper. The chapter concludes with a review of the historiography of Populism. It compares and contrasts the previous interpretations of the party and applies these findings to this study. The economic, demographic and environmental characteristics of the Populist Era in Sonoma County during the 1890's are the subject of
v chapter two. It discusses the effects of population growth, nativity, ethnicity, climate, changing farm characteristics, crop stability and the county's financial affairs during the 1890's. Sonoma County's experience with respect to the foregoing characteristics differs considerably from the experience of California and of the nation at large, and this difference significantly affected the degree of support that Populist reforms received in Sonoma County. Chapter three investigates the origin of the Peoples' Party nationally, in California and in Sonoma County. It provides the background which led to the establishment of the agricultural organizations that preceded the party, and it highlights the general events that gave rise to the party. The chapter begins with a study of the Grange in the 1870's, continues with a review of the Nationalist Clubs in 1889, the Farmers' Alliance in the 1880's and 1890's, and ends with the formation of the Peoples' Party in 1892. The next three chapters explain and analyze the empirical data from the elections of 1892 through 1896. The events surrounding these elections are placed in chronological order whenever possible. Chapter four focuses on the establishment of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County and the election of 1892. It surveys the events leading to the birth of the local party and includes a brief description of party meetings, conventions, platforms and officers. In addition, it examines the issues and candidates of the municipal, county and state election of 1892. This chapter concludes with a summary of the election results in Sonoma County, in California and at the national level.
vi The election of 1894 is the subject of chapter five. It begins with reference to the Depression of 1893 and summarizes how it affected Populism as well as Sonoma County, California and the nation. It continues by discussing the ideology and importance of silver and monetary reform, the railroad problem, the Populist Clubs and the question of fusion. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the candidates, platforms and election returns. Chapter six highlights the political and economic factors which resulted in the decline of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County after the election of 1896. It stUdies the nationwide and local conflict within the Republican, Democratic and Populist Parties over tariffs, free silver, the Catholic issue and fusion. In addition, the chapter reviews the Peoples' Party participation in Santa Rosa's municipal election by examining the respective candidates, platforms, events and results. It also includes the Peoples' Party position in the presidential election of 1896. When examining the results of this election, the chapter analyzes the effects of fusion, the rise of the Republican Party and the inconsistencies in county voting returns to determine the causes of Populist defeat and the end of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County. Chapters eight and nine conclude this paper with an evaluation and interpretation of the empirical data. Chapter eight reviews previously published stUdies and research in relation to this work. The conclUsions drawn by the respective authors about Populism nationwide and in California are compared to the findings of this study about Populism in Sonoma County to determine if similarities exist. Chapter nine speculates about the limits of this study and the areas in need of
vii fUrther research. It presents both the oonclusion of this researoh based upon the available data and the implioations drawn from the present findings.
viii Table of Contents Page List of Tables ...... , xii Chapter
1 '" Introduction", '" '" . '" . '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" .. '" '" '" '" .. '" '" '" '" '" . '" '" 2. Factors Affecting the Rise of Populism in Sonoma County...... 13 3. The Organizations and Events Leading to the Rise of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County...... 27 4. The Establishment of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County and the Election of 1892... 35 5. The Election of 1894...... 49 6. The Election of 1896...... 71 7. Sonoma Populism in the Context of Historical Literature...... 94
8", Conclusion ..... '" '" '" '" '" 11 '" '" '" '" '" • '" " .. '" '" '" '" '" '" '" • '" '" '" '" '" "'.. 104
Appendices Page A. United States Population 1880-1910 and United States Rural and Urban Population Growth 1880-1910...... 115 B. California Population 1880-1910 and California Urban and Rural Population Growth 1880-1910...... • ...... • •• 116 C. Population Sonoma County 1880-1900 and Urban-Rural Population Increases
1880-1900", '" . '" '" ... it '" '" '" '" '" " '" '" '" ••• '" '" \J • '" • '" '" ... "'.. 117 D. Sonoma County Selected Irrmigration Statistics .. '" '" '" .. '" '" '" '" '" '" '" . '" . '" .. '" '" '" ... '" . '" . '" '" . '" 118
ix E. Nativity of the Population of Sonoma County 1880-1910 and %of Population by Raoe and Nativity Sonoma County 1880-1910 ...... 119 F. United States, California and Sonoma County Farm Population, Farms and Land in Farms .•..••..•..•...•.. 120 G. Farm Size in Sonoma County 1880-1900 .•.•... 121 H. Agricultural Production 1880-1890 Sonoma County...... "" ...... ,.". 122 I. Market Report Selected Crops in Sonoma County 1891-1896 ...... 123 J. Assessed Evaluation Sonoma County 1890-1897. • • • ...... • • • ...... 121.1 K. Sonoma County Banking Assets and Capital 1890-1893 .••..•..•...... ••••..... 125 L. Farm Organization Membership in California 1891 ...... 126 M. Agrarian Platforms 1892 ..•..•••••..•...... 127 N. Sonoma Municipal and County Populist Platforms 1892-1896...... 128 O. Santa Rosa City Election Results 1892 ...••. 129 P. 1894 Election Results: Selected State Offices and Municipalities in Sonoma County Town Areas...... •. 130 Q. 1894 Election Results: Selected State Offices and Municipalities in Sonoma County Rural Areas .•••..••....•.••.•..... 131 R. Santa Rosa City Eleotion Results 1894 .•••.. 132 S. The Comparison of Party Platforms in Santa Rosa Municipal Election of 1896.•.• 133 T. 1896 Election Results: Selected Offices and Municipalities in Sonoma County Town Areas...... 134
x U. 1896 Election Results: Selected Offices and Municipalities in Sonoma County
Rura 1 Areas ...... It- ...... III • • ... 135
V. 1896 Presidential Election Results Sonoma County Fusion Vote in Selected Municipalities. • . • . . • • • . • . • • . . • • • . . . • . • .. 136 W. Sonoma County Populist Party Leaders and Occupati ons. • • . . • • • • . . . • . . • • . . • . . • . .. 137
Bibliography ...... '" ...... 140
xi List of Tables Table Page
1. Sonoma County Urban-Rural Statistics 1880-1900... 1~
2. Sonoma County Mortgage Transactions 1890-95 ..•... 2~ 3. Election Results: Sonoma County 1892 .•...... • 46 4. Election Results: Sonoma County 1894 .••••.•....• 62 5. State Election Results: Sonoma County 1894 •••..• 63 6. Possible Fusion Vote for State and County Candidates in 1894 ..•••..•.••....•.•...•..••... 65 7. Town-Rural Vote: 1894 Sonoma County Election Selected County Candidates ••.••.•.•.••.•..••... 67 8. Town-Rural Vote: 1894 Sonoma County Election Selected State Candidates •••.•....•.•••...•.••. 68 9. Election Results: Santa Rosa 1896 .•.••.•...•••.. 73 10. Presidential Election Results: Sonoma County 1896 ...... ,...... 85 11. Town-Rural Vote: 1896 Sonoma County Election Selected County Candidates...... 86 12. 1896 Fusion Vote by Selected Candidates ••.•••..•• 88
xii 1
Chapter I Introduction
Populism in Sonoma County began in the 1870's with the establishment of the Grange which attempted to help the farmer overcome his economic problems and social isolation. Although the Grange continued to operate in the 1880's, its position of leadership in Sonoma County's agricultural community began to diminish. A return of local prosperity and improved farm conditions during that decade reduced the need for both agricultural reforms and organizations and thus reduced the political influence of the local Grange. However, environmental, political and economic conditions nationwide during the 1890's renewed the need for strong, active advocates to protect the interests of agriculture. Consequently, Populism in Sonoma County experienced a short revival in the early 1890's with the organization of the Farmers' Alliance and lasted until the demise of the local Peoples' Party in 1896. Although the Populist revival was fleeting, it was not without impact on local politics. If historians carefully investigate the political influence of third party politics on the local level in California during the last decade of the 19th Century, they will find that the Peoples' Party impacted upon both California and Sonoma County politics. This influence in Sonoma County is not easily discovered, however, because only limited sources are available on the political and economic history of Sonoma County during the 1890's, and those which do 2 exist exclude the Populist and the Peoples' Party completely. In addition, the political efforts of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County are easily overlooked because the party failed to assume a position of leadership within the state party and because local Populists produced no publications to remain as an historical legacy. The purpose of this study is to raise from obscurity many of the political, economic and social events related to Populism in Sonoma County during the 1890's so that the origin, political importance and the
decline of the Peoples' Party can be better understood. Therefore, this study both adds to the general history of Sonoma County and provides insights into the political evolvement of Populism during this period. It summarizes local as well as national conditions which affected the agriculutural community and reviews the farmers' efforts to achieve a political solution through the Peoples' Party. Investigation began with primary questions: Was there an active and developing Peoples' Party in Sonoma County? If so, when and where did it originate? Who were its important figures? What was its influence? What was its impact on Sonoma County elections? And finally, what led to its early demise? The respective answers showed that the establishment of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County in 1892 Significantly affected the outcome of the county elections of 1892, 1894 and 1896 by influencing the decisions of local voters. The evidence for this conclusion was obtained in three steps: first, by analyzing the importance of both the demographic and economic conditions present in Sonoma County in the 1890's; second, by investigating the party's leaders and the influence of 3 party platforms; last, by examining the events leading to the establishment and decline of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County. Research also showed that during this Populist period political, econorndc and demographic factors in Sonoma County differed significantly from those nationally and statewide. These unusual local conditions produced a county People's Party which did not fit the established or fixed party ncrms. Several obstacles impeded this study. First, the length of time elapsed since the 1890's makes oral research almost impossible. Second, the absence of primary and secondary sources on Sonoma County Populism restricted the research to news publications as the primary source of data. Finally, and perhaps related to the lack of sources, there is apparently little interest in both the California Peoples' Party and in the Sonoma Populist Party of this period. However, the paucity of prior research presented an excellent opportunity for investigation into both the topic and the period in general. 1 This study began with the histories of Sonoma County written by Thomas Gregory, Honoria Tuomey, Ernest Finley, Harvey Hansen and J.T. Miller and Campbell Menefee, all of which concentrate on Sonoma's history before this period. Those which do extend past the 1890's fail to consider Populism at that time. The recent history of Santa Rosa written
1 The basic research for this paper began with an investigation of the card catalogs, newspapers, microfilm, manuscripts and other reference sources in the county, university and state libraries in Northern California. Personal and phone contacts, letters and visits were initiated to county museums and historical societies. In addition, letters and calls were made to county historians such as Dee Blackman, Mary Praetzellis and William Heintz. by Le Baron, Blackman and Mitchell also fails to discuss this period and topic in any depth.
Donald E. Walters I doctoral dissertation, "Populism in California: 1889-1900," the only comprehensive study of the Populist [JDvement in California, also omits any reference to the party's activities in Sonoma County. Such omissions within the literature emphasized the need to discover whether there had been, in fact, a Sonoma Peoples' Party, and if so, what role it had played in county politics.2 Local newspapers including the Sonoma Democrat, Sonoma Index- Tribune and the Petaluma Argus-Courier contain a majority of the primary data on the Peoples' Party. They published information on membership and on the dates and locations of both party meetings and conventions. They also give a chronology of the campaigns and a record of most election results. The Healdsburg EnterErise, Sebastopol Times and other local newspapers supply little additional information. Searching through Populist papers published during this period, such as the Pacific Rural EXEress, PeoEles' Press, The Populist and the Western Watchman, provides little data on Sonoma County. Further, only limited editions of various Populist papers published during the 1890's are extant. Several editions of The Populist, the party's official paper, were located at the Bancroft Library and at the California Historical Society. Access to limited editions of The Populist was possible at Bancroft although they produoed no pertinent information on Sonoma County Populism. The California Historical Society, however,
2 Donald E. Walters, "Populism in California: 1899-1900,11 PhD. Dissertation, University of California, 1952. 5 refused to make their editions available because their documents had been placed in storage due to the library's limited space. Consequently, their editions were closed to public inspection at this time. The Peoples' Advocate, published in August of 1892 in Santa Rosa, was referred to by the Sonoma Democrat of August 27 of that year as the official party paper of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County. However, having exhausted all avenues, this researcher found no copies of that publication. It appears that only one issue or perhaps a very few issues were published. This limited publication probably accounts for its disappearance, but if any copies of this single sheet could be located, it would provide outstanding source material.3 Information on the county's demography, on weather and on local elections was located in the California Blue Books, county directories and government publications housed in the California Room of the Sonoma County Library, the Bancroft Library at the University of California Berkeley and at the libraries of the University of California Davis, Stanford University, Sonoma State University, the State Library in Sacramento and the California Historical Society. These libraries contained abundant material regarding state and national Populism, but
3 Searching for the Peoples' Advocate plus additional Populist literature extended to a physical search of the archives of Edward Mannion, but no pertinent information was uncovered. Attempts at contacting California historians Donald E. Walters at San Jose State University and Harold F. Taggart at San Mateo Community College proved unsuccessful. In addition, a director of the California State Archives in Sacramento insisted that the archives contained no information on Sonoma County Populism during the 1890's. Contacts with relatives of several Peoples' Party members (Keegan, Galloway, Roberts, Warner, Gutermute, Ware, Sims) were also fruitless. Either existing families could not be located or could not supply information on their ancestor's participation in the People's Party nor on the Peoples' Advocate. 6 only limited information on Sonoma County and on Sonoma Populism could be found. Furthermore, no assistance or information was available from the various Historical Societies of Sonoma County and little information was found in county government sources. 4 Although only limited literature on state and local Populism is available, a large amount of data exists on the Populist movement in other areas of the nation and on Populism in general. Historians began in the 1920's to view Populism in a sympathetic light. Solon J. Buok, in 1913 and again in 1920, wrote progressive interpretations of the "agrarian orusade" which were later reaffirmed by John Hicks in the Populist Revolt;5 additional stUdies were conduoted by Charles Beard and Fred Shannon. These historians believed Populism's reaotion to the oruel and unjust economic exploitations of the agricultural society was rational, appropriate and justifiable. This group of historians views Populists as making a pOSitive, constructive oontribution to the Amerioan ideals of freedom and democracy. In recent years the progressive view of Populism has been vigorously challenged by revisionist historians such as Richard
4 In addition to the sources previously cited, visits were made to all county administrative offices and to the county office of the State Department of Agriculture. The Office of the County Recorder provided information on property sales transactions from 1890-1895 and on banking capital and assets up to 1894. Attempts were made to locate bankruptcy records by researching the Sonoma County Law Library and by direct contaot with the Federal Bankruptcy Court in Eureka. No records were available for this period. Research continued at the Sutro Library, California Historical Society and California Society of Pioneers, however, no Populist material pertaining to Sonoma County was looated. 5 John D. Hicks, The Populist Revolt, (Minneapolis: Univeristy of Minnesota Press, 1983). Progressives viewed Populism as a new, liberal ideology based on orderly change and fruitful progress in the social, political and economic policies of government. 7 Hofstadter in the Age of Reform and by Victor Ferkiss in the npopulist Influence on American Fascism. n6 These authors saw Populists as a group seeking scapegoats rather than real answers and as a group which believed history was a series of conspiracies. Furthermore, these writers insisted that Populists were isolationists, nativists, xenophobic and anti-semitic. The revisionist view was quickly challenged by Norman Pollock in The Populist Mind, by Walter T. K. Nugent, Sheldon Hackney and Michael Rogin in The Intellectual and McCarthy and by other counter revisionists.7 These historians saw Populism as a mass movement to transform America's social system. Pollock used evidence from Populist writings to support his belief that Populism, although radical, was rational and coherent in its criticism of America's economic and political status. Pollock found no evidence to support revisionist charges of jingoism, xenophobia and anti-semitism. One of the most recent anti-revisionist works on the Populist movement is The Democratic Promise: The Populist Movement in America, written by Lawrence Goodwyn,8 Goodwyn devotes the major portion of his book to the monetary conditions of the Gilded Age, to the crop lien system and to the emergence of the National Farmers' Alliance and its
6 Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955); Victor C. Ferkiss, "The Populist Influence on American Fascism," Western Historical Quarterly, X:2, (June 1957), 350-57. 7 Norman Pollock, The Populist Mind, (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril Co., Inc., 1967); Michael Rogin, The Intellectual and McCarthy, (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1967). 8 Lawrence Goodwyn, The Democratic Promise: The Populist Movement in America, (Oxford: Oxford Press, 1976). 8 cooperative movement. This author's treatment of the formation of the Peoples' Party, its rise to political prominence and its decline in 1896 due to William Jennings Bryan and the silver issue proved valuable to this study. Although not dealing specifically with Populism, John Higham's Strangers in the Land analyzed American nativism (America's anti-foreign spirit) and its effects on American character. 9 According to Higham, during the 1890's nativist movements grew in importance and created fear and often hatred of anything foreign by many Americans, and Populism of this same decade is commonly characterized as nativistic by many historians. Regardless of possible nativistic tendencies, Populism, like other third parties, played an important role in our nation's political development. Rosenstone, Baker and Lazarus detail the development of third parties in their book, Third Parties in America. 10 According to these authors, third parties develop to express discontent through rejection of the major parties' policies or candidates, and they become important sources of policy innovations. The authors conclude that third parties are valuable as originators of issues ignored by the two major parties. Populism fulfilled this precise function by highlighting and adopting needed reforms not being addressed by the other major parties.
9 John Higham, Stran~ers in the Land, (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955), -12, 6B=105. 10 Steven J. Rosenstone, Roy L. Behr, Edward H. Lazarus, Third Parties in America, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 1-2, 67-74. 9 The political development of Populism as discussed by William Diamond, in "Urban and Rural Voting in 1896," found that by 1896 the United States had experienced rapid urbanization. 11 In this rapid expansion of urban areas, rural and urban sections often developed conflicting perspectives and voting patterns on political problems. Diamond observed that in the presidential election of 1896 an urban-rual struggle developed which was as important to the results as the traditional sectional struggle. Diamond concludes that Bryan lost the election because he had failed to gain strong urban support. From the larger context of national Populism, the literature on California Populism is limited in both scope and depth. While there are no major publications dealing exclusively with the subject, the work most frequently cited is "Populism in California: 1889-1900," a doctoral thesis by Donald E. Walters.12 Walter's work is a well-researched and documented narrative history of the rise of Populism in California from the organizations that preceded it through the inception of the Peoples' Party and its decline in 1898. Walters saw California Populism as an attempt to purify politics. He believed California was controlled by bosses and the corporations that backed them, largely by the Southern Pacific Railroad. According to Walters the continual creation of new counties and the Catholic-Protestant issue created constant dissension on the local level while failure to attract prominent leadership dedicated
11 William Diarrond, "Urban and Rural Voting in 1896," American Historical Review, 40-41:286-293. 12 Walters, "Populism in California: 1899-1900." 10 exclusively to the cause of Populism was a major factor in the decline of the state Peoples's Party. Harold F. Taggart and Michael Rogin wrote a number of articles dealing with the Populist Party in California. Taggart, California's most prolific writer about Populism, produced five articles dealing with the campaigns and the election issues in the state from 1893 to 1898. Taggart's articles include the following: "The Senatorial Election of 1893 in California" which contains valuable information regarding the Peoples' Party; "Thomas Vincent Cator, Populist Leader in California" which deals with T.V. Cator's life and his involvment with Populism;
"California and the Silver Question of 1895" which covers the rising importance of California Populism and of the silver question; "The Party Realignment of 1896" which reviews how support and opposition to Populism and Bryan influenced a major party realignment in 1896; "The Election of 1898 in California History" which discusses the election of 1898 and the decline of the Populist Party. 13 Michael Rogin's most significant contribution to California Populism, Political Change in California: Critical Elections and Social Movement 1890-1966, was written in conjunction with John Shover. 14
13 Harold F. Taggart, "The Senatorial Election of 1893 in California," California Historical Society 19(1), (March 1970), 59-73; Taggart, "Thomas Vincent Cator, Populist Leader in California," California Historical Society Quarterly XXVII, (1949), 46-55; Taggart, "California and the Silver Question of 1895," Pacific Historical Review, (June 1937), 249-252; Taggart, "The Party Realignment of 1890 in California," Pacific Historical Review 8(4), (December 1939), 435-52. Taggart, "The Election of 1898 in California History," Pacific Historical Review 191, 357-68. 14 Michael Rogin and John Shover, Political Critical Elections and Social Movements~1~9~-~9:rr~~::..:;;-..;:;;;..;;~=.;;,::.::....:.:;;;;;.;;;".;..- Publishing Co., 1970), 20-29. 11
Rogin's article, "California Populism and the System of 1896, II is a chapter from the book written with Shover. Rogin believes that 1896 was a critical year in California Populism because Bryan's campaign realigned the sources of support for the major parties, because the election exaggerated Populist ethnic cleavages, because fUsion with the Democrats offered little sustained opposition to the Republicans and because Populism failed to achieve major political reform. The failure to maintain an image of social protest led to a decline in voter support and weakened party loyality. Therefore, the defeat of the fUsion ticket in the election of 1896 marked the decline of the Peoples' Party in California. Rogin and Shover agreed with Walters that California Populism was less a product of poverty and more a reaction to the feverish accumulation of wealth and its exploitation. Rogin concluded that California Populism was a middle class party that had been influenced by the Protestant nativistic rr:ovement and had achieved its greatest success in the poor rural counties with growing population. 15 Two dissimilar but important writers that add to understanding Populism are Alexander Saxon in "San Francisoo Labor and Populist and Progressive Insurgencies" and Tom G. Hall in "California Populism at the Grassroots Level: The Case of Tulare County 1892. ,,16 Saxon deals with
15 Michael Rogin, "California Populism and the System of 1896," Western Political Quarterly, XXXIII (Maroh 1969), 179-197; Walters, "California Populism," 1-4. 16 Alexander Saxon, "San Franoisco Labor and the Populist and Progressive Insurgencies," Pacific Historical Review, (November 1965), 421-438; Tom G. Hall, "California Populism at the Grassroots: The Case of Tulare County, 1892," Southern California Quarterly 49(2), (June 1967), 190-201. 12 labor in California politics and Populism's attempt to merge with urban labor. He insisted that Populism was unable to obtain a favorable response from California labor because the Peoples' Party failed to develop strong rural backing. Without this backing the Populists lacked the political power to compete with existing urban labor politicians. Thus, !1Populism failed in the city because it failed in the country." Hall addressed the rise of the Populist Party on the local level in Tulare County. He found that in 1892 Tulare Populism consisted of a diverse membership of small country farmers and a coalition of various third party members. During this period the political issues developed by Tulare Populists were three: opposition to large farms, support for government control of railroads and the means of communication, and promotion of the single tax. Hall stated that with the decline of the Peoples' Party, many members of the Tulare Populist movement joined the Sooialist party. National Populism, as a short-lived mass movement by Western and Southern agrarian societies in the 1890's, has been subject to thorough research and muoh disagreement. Both the origins of the Populist movement and the character of the Populist ideology remain subject to a multitude of interpretations by California and national historians. Since the origin and ideology of Sonoma County Populism has been excluded from historical study, this research will bring new information to light and will help olarify many questions about the county's experience with Populism. 13
Chapter II Factors Affecting the Rise of Populism in Sonoma County
In order to understand the origins of the Peoples' Party and other farm movements in Sonoma County, a knowledge of the demographic, environmental, and economic conditions in both California and Sonoma during the 1890's is useful. These conditions created the need for a variety of agricultural reforms within the state during this period and led to the creation of a Sonoma County Peoples' Party for reasons somewhat dissimilar to other local Populist parties. The first of these factors, population growth, played an important role in the rise of California Populism, more particularly in southern California but 1n Sonoma County as well. From population statistics of California during the 1890's, state demography shows that both native inhabitants and foreign immigrants were moving to the major urban centers. The Eleventh Census of 1890 found that California's population was 1,208,130 and ltO.89 percent urban. 1 (Urban refers to cities of 8,000
1 Walters, "Populism in California, II 1-25; Stephan !herns trom, A History of the American People Since 1865, Vol. II, (Boston: Hardcourt, Brace, Jovanovich PUblishers, 198&), 578. Contemporary local historians disagree on the definition of rural-urban development 1n California and in Somona County during the 1890's. In addition, there is a disagreement in the literature about what constitutes an urban or a rural area. If population is used as the criteria, Walters, based on the Eleventh Census, classified urban as "locations of 8,000 or I1Dre population" while Thernstrom and others state that the Census Bureau has defined urban as "locations of 2,500 or nnre population. n 14 or more.) San Francisco remained the states's largest city in 1890 with a population of 298,997 -- almost one fourth of the state's total - while Los Angeles had a population of 50,396, Oaklandts was 48,686 and Sacramento's, 26,386. 2 While these and other small urban centers contained large portions of California's population, the majority of the state remained rural which resulted in a highly unbalanced population distribution. Given the nation as a whole, however, California was highly urbanized especially on the West Coast. Sonoma County Urban-Rural Statistics 1880-1900 % % Urban % % Rural Year Pop. Urban Urban Increase Rural Rural Increase 1880 25,926 8,567 33.1 17 ,350 66.9 1890 32,721 11,180 34.1 30.0 21,541 65.9 24.1 1900 38,480 13,817 35.9 23.5 24,663 64.1 14.4 +1.8 -6.8 -1.8 -9.7 Urban-rural population ohange in Sonoma County between 1890 and 1900 resembled that of California and of the nation during the same period. Sonoma County's urban population inoreased by 1.8 peroent (to 35.9 percent) while the state inorease was 31.7 peroent and the national, 33.9. However, Sonoma County differed O(l)Iq;)letelY fromtne state and national trends in its rate of population inorease. While the rate of increase in both urban end t"'1.:1ral.populatiions rOSe inCa.lif'ornia and nationwide, Sonoma t s re"pe~~iveFatesdeol':"easedyduri1:'lstl'lisperiod. Population statistioa,.sl:;lowthat.between1890andJ900,the oounty's rate of rural population inorease, at -9.7 peroent, was slower than the rate of town populationincr,ease,>at ...6.!5peroent... ltiSUtmlary,Sonoma
2 Bureau of Cenaus Report on Populations of the U.S. at the Eleventh Census, Part I 1xiv-1xvi. 15 County's total population was increasing while the rate at which it increased was declining, and the county's population was settling in the tcwns at a greater rate than in the rural areas.3 Although the town population grew at a faster rate than the rural sector's, the total increase of town population was less than that of the rural area. 4 This change in population distribution, although slight, may have affected the balance of political and economic power within the county. The ecomonic growth of the urban areas appears substantiated in reports by the county assessor. These reports indicate a decline in the assessed evaluation of rural property by 14.6 percent from 1890 to 1897 which was accompanied by an increase of 111.2 percent in city property during the same period. 5 Therefore, with a rise in town property values producing
3 Warren S. Thompson, The Growth Chan~es in California Population, (Los Angeles: The Haynes Foundation, 1955 , 1-88. Thompson concluded that California's urban population was relatively large from the start and grew at a rate faster than the national rate; Historical Statistics of the United States Colonial Times to 1970, Part I, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Washington D.C., Series A 197, D 152-156; Sonoma Democrat, January 7, 1891; Sonoma Democrat, November 14, 1900.
4 Population figures reported by the Census Bureau for the periods of 1890 and 1900 show only Santa Rosa and Petaluma with populations of 2,500 or more and none with populations of 8,000. However, if townships are used to show concentrations of population, then four townships including Ana1y, Mendocino, Petaluma and Santa Rosa exceeded 2,500 and among these, Santa Rosa exceeded 8,000. Local papers used the terms "town" and "city" interchangeably when referring to Santa Rosa, Petaluma and Healdsburg. They used the term "township", however, to refer not only to the town or city but also to a unit of county and rural administration which surrounded it. 5 Sonoma DeIOOcrat, July 14, 1890, March 8, 1890, July 25, 1891, March 7, 1896; Petaluma Courier, December 10, 1890, July 25 , 1891, July 18, 1894, July 22, 1896; Sonoma Re~ub1ican, March 30, 1893; Santa Rosa DeIOOcrat, April 14, 1894, May 5, 1~4, May 7, 1894. See AppendIx J, 124. Although these publications offer data on county assessed evaluation, figures are often conflicting and incomplete. 16 increased town wealth and with the increase in population producing more voters, Santa Rosa, Petaluma and Healdsburg should have bolstered their economic and political power. However, Sonoma County 's election results show that in the political arena this was not the case. Although the rate of town population growth was increasing, the total number of voters remained higher in the rural areas. For example, between the election of
1894 and 1896, the rural registered voters increased by 819 or 17.1 percent while the town (urban) registered vote increased by only 271 or 9.1 percent. As a result, during this period the economic power of the urban areas may have increased, but the political power remained in rural
Sonoma County.6 This factor impacted on Populism since the Peoples t Party received the bulk of its support from the rural sector. In "California Populism and the System of 1896" Rogin indicated that California Populism was mainly a rural phenomenon.7 Therefore, the gradual concentration of the population in both cities and towns, coupled with the failure of Populism to appeal to the city laborer, may have adversely affected Populist support in California as well as in Sonoma County and may have mitigated against the success of Populism in the respective elections.
6 Sonoma Democrat, November 10, 1894; Sonoma Democrat, November 7, 1896. Although voting statistics vary, the registered vote for 1894 was approximately 7,743 of which 4,771 were rural and 2,972 were from the three major towns, Healdsburg, Petaluma and Santa Rosa. The registered vote increased in 1896 to 8,833 with 5,590 rural voters as compared to 3,243 town voters, an increase of 819 rural voters and 271 town voters. Only limited comparison can be made with the 1892 eleotion due to incomplete county records.
7 Michael Rogin, "California Populism and the System of 1896, II Western Political Quarterly XXII, March 1969, 179-196. 17 The change in population distribution highlights questions about the ethnic and racial characteristics of Sonoma County. Historians, such as Hofstadter and Ferkiss, believed Populists were nativists, xenophobic and anti-Catholic. 8 Therefore, understanding the racial and ethnic composition of the county's population may further understanding of Populism and its impact on the local political atmosphere. Despite continued immigration, Sonoma's native born, white American population aotually had increased slightly while total foreign population had declined between 1890 and 1900. This increase was probably caused by both an increased local birth rate and by increased migration of other white, American born oitizens to Sonoma. Sonoma's predominately white native population totaled over 72 percent in 1880 and grew to over 77 peroent by 1900 while the foreign population declined from 23 peroent to 19.6 percent.9 Since research confirms that Populism generally reoeived its support from the native, white population, this local population trend should have bolstered the support base for the Peoples' Party.
During the 1880's and early 1890 's, the composition of the foreign population within the county fluotuated widely. There was a marked decline of Chinese residents and a sizable increase of European immigrants. This decreasing Chinese population contributed to the overall decline in Sonoma's foreign popUlation while Protestant Germans
8 Richard Hofstadter, Sheldon Hackney, ed., "Folklore of Populism" in Populism: The Critical Issues, (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971), 67; Ferkiss, "Populist Influences on American Fascism,tt 350-57. 9 Thompson, Popu lation Changes, 9-88; Frank Speth, "History of Agricultural Labor in Sonoma County," (Microfilm, 1938), 45-47; See Appendix E, 119. 18 and Italian Catholics constituted the largest number of new immigrants. Irish Catholics also continued to settle but in decreasing numbers. 10 The county's ethnic composition in the 1890's may have impacted negatively on Populism. The total number of Italian and Irish Catholic immigrants out numbered the German Protestant immigrants by 500, and this combination increased the number of local Catholics. 11 If county Populists were strongly nativist and anti-Catholic, then a large block of potential voters were excluded from the party. Even though this large influx of Catholic immigrants may have threatened rural Populists, economically and politically, and heightened nativist sentiments, the county's growing prosperity increased the need for farm labor and may have made acceptance necessary. Although demographics had a significant impact on California Populism, environmental and economic conditions also played an important role in its development. The nationally depressed conditions of the early 1890's were intensified in parts of ~orthern California due to the harsh environmental conditions. A difficult winter in 1890 which disrupted rail connections to the east brought not only cold weather which destroyed crops and vineyards but also heavy rains which cut the output of wheat. These conditions increased agrarian discontent and
10 Frank Speth, "History of Agricultural Labor in Sonoma County," Microfilm 135, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1938), 18; William Hientz, lithe Role of Chinese Labor in Viticulture and Wine Making in Nineteenth Century California," M.A. Thesis, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California, 1977, 79-98.
11 Frank Speth 7 "History of Agricultural Labor in Sonoma County, II 18. 19 unemployment, furthered loss of income and intensified the need for political action. 12 However, Sonoma County's agriculture was affected less by the inclement weather of the 1890's than were other areas of the state. The relatively mild weather conditions of Sonoma promoted prosperity in the agricultural community and reduced the number of farmers seel ", •• there appeared to be no great suffering of the county fruit growers 1 for the crop waS in good condition.,,15 Sonoma's climatic conditions measured at the agricultural research station and chronicled in The Report of the Chief of the Weather Bureau as published by the Department of Agriculture for 1891 to 1894, show that the county experienced no long term, extreme or abnormal conditions. A 12 Hal Williams, The Democratic Part 1896 (Stanford: Stanford nlversity 13 Petaluma Courier, January 23, 1892. 14 Sonoma Republican, March 30, 1893. 15 Sonoma Demoorat, August 15, 1894. 20 oomplete reoord of Sonoma weather oonditions for the 1890's is not available from the Department of Commerce, but what data are recorded indicate that the weather for this period was oonsistent with the norm of previous and subsequent years. 16 The Histor~ of Sonoma County edited by Thomas Gregory contains data on the rainfall in the county from 1880 through 1900. These data registered by G.W. Whitaker and Robert Hall show the average rainfall in the southern seotion of the oounty was 23.14 inohes per year for this period while the entire oounty recorded an average of 32.26 inches per year from 1890 to 1900. This evidence reinforces the State Department of Agriculture's data that weather conditions in the county, during the Populist period, were neither abnormal nor created any lasting economic hardship to county agrarian interests. 17 In addition to mild environmental factors, Sonoma's eoonomic condition was further enhanced by ohanges in the type and structure of local agriculture. By 1890 Sonoma's major economic activity, agriculture, had begun to specialize and diversify. The shift from wheat as the major crop to other specialized orops, such as grapes and fruit, drastically affected the labor force by ohanging both the character and amount of labor needed. Viticulture, a labor intensive product, plus the 16 United States, Department of Agriculture, Report of the Chief of the Weather Bureau, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1891-1894, 366-370; United States, Department of Commerce, Historical Statistics of the United States to 1970, Part I, Series J. 248-276, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., 1975, 446. 17 Thomas J. Gregory, History of Sonoma County, (Lewis Publishing Company, 1889), 241-279; Department of Agriculture, Report of the Chief of the Weather Bureau, 366-370. 21 diminishing number of the Chinese in the labor force, created a pressing labor shortage in the county. However, this shortage was greatly ameliorated by the newly arriving Italian imrndgrants who had viticulture experience. According to Frank Speth, the change from wheat to viticulture was successful in Sonoma because "farmers, specializing in viticulture, were largely small owners who carried on diversified farming. II This change to specialized crops in conjunction with the mild weather conditions greatly enhanced the economic stability of the county, thereby reducing the local need for many of the drastic economic reforms proposed by Populism. 18 Throughout the nation both the number and size of farms increased between 1880-1900. In California, although there was growth in the number of farms, there waS a corresponding decline in their size. Likewise, Sonoma County had a rise in the number of farms and a reduction in the acres per farm during this period. In addition, the size of Sonoma's farms deoreased at a rate greater than that of California and the nation. 19 This change in Sonoma's farm demographics was accompanied by a tremendous rise in crop production except for wheat, barley, wine, butter and potatoes. The data oollected by Speth verify that orchard products 18 Speth, "History of Agricultural Labor in Sonoma County," 7-21. 19 Ibid, Speth, 7-21; In Sonoma Couunty after 1900, the average acreage per farm dwindled further to 213 acres, an additional decrease of 13 percent over the period 1890-1900. Petaluma Courier, March 12, 1892, reported by Ivan De Turk. The paper states that Sonoma County had 842 wine growing farms of more than five acres with a total acreage of 21,053 under cultivation. This condition would make the average farm about 25 acres; Historical Statistics of United States Colonial Times to 1920 Series K, 1-16. See Appendix F, 120; Appendix G, 121. 22 made a large increase by leaping to 927,831 bushels in 1900, an increase of five and one-half times the output in 1880 while other products increased from 10 to 900 percent. Viticulture, fruit production and the growth of small diversified farms increased the profitability of the acreage under cUltivation and enabled Sonoma County to reduce the effect of the recession during the 1890's.20 In relation to other California counties, Sonoma County's changes created a prosperous county which minimized the demand for most agrarian reforms and hindered the rise of Populism. An increase in crop production is usually followed by a drastic drop in farm prices. However, market reports of specific crops in the county confirm only a slight decline in farm prices from 1891 to 1900. 21 Even though no concrete evidence regarding Sonoma County has been found, national and state data indicate that this drop in prices probably resulted from competition which increased production, the development of less costly methods of production, and increased purchasing power. 22 Market reports between 1891 and 1900 show that the price received by Sonoma farmers for their crops remained fairly constant. The stability of farm prices served to increase local Populist demands for free coinage of silver and for inflated currency. Sonoma farmers believed that such currency reforms would lead to higher prices for farm products and would increase their net income. 20 Speth, "History of Agricultural Labor in Sonoma County," 1938, 7 21. See Appendix H, 122. 21 See Appendix I, 123. 22 Ray Billington, Westward Ex ansion Frontier, (New York: The~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ McMillan Company, 23 Although farm demographics were significant to Sonoma Populism, the local party was also influenced by the state and national economic decline of the early 1890's which created upheaval within the agricultural community. This discontent led to the cry for farm reform throughout the nation. Farmers who had not been politically active since the Granger movement of the 1870's searched for relief from their problems through renewed interest in agrarian reform organizations and other political action. Sonoma County's increased farm productivity, stable fiscal affairs and local prosperity would have reduced the effects of this general economic depression. In comparison to state and national conditions, the financial affairs of the county appear relatively stable. 23 Statements by local banking officials indicate that the money supply was adequate and that farming and business development was not hindered by a drastic shortage of capital. Examination of the county's financial condition shows that from 1890 to 1896 no banks, savings or lending agencies were forced to close nor that any refused to make loans to qualified borrowers in the county due to the adverse eoonomic conditions facing the rest of California and the nation. 24 In addition, available county bank records 23 Ira Cross, Finanoin an Eire: Histor of Bankin in California, Vol II, San Francisco: S.J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1927), 587. Cross stated that the over-expansion of California's agriculture and industry in the 1880's created a period of slow but steady financial growth. The effect of the depression in 1893 which led to the closing of many California banks had diminished by 1894, and a period of prosperity returned to California banking. 24 Sonoma Demoorat, July 1, 1893; See Appendex K, 125. Although bankruptcies and property forolosures of lenders for non-payment would give a olearer picture, this information is not available. A search for these records at the U.S. Bankruptoy Court, County Law Library and at other library and county government souroes proved fruitless. 24 show that bank assets, capital and deposits remained stable with assets equal to or greater than liabilities. A review of the number of mortgage transactions and the assessed property evaluation provides further understanding of the economic conditions of Sonoma County during the period from 1890 to 1895. 25 Sonoma County Mortgage Transactions 1890-95 Mortgage Transactions Percent Change 1890 691 1891 805 +16.4 1~2 672 -16.5 1893 895 +33.1 1894 765 -14.6 1895 806 + 5.3 When interpreting the mortgage transaction record of the County Recorderts Office, three factors must be considered: first, land sales should be increasing since many large farms were split and new land opened for farming which increased the number of small farms each year; second, not all sales would be caused by economic hardship since property may have been sold for various other reasons; last, either a decrease or increase in sales could indicate a depressed or prosperous economy. However, if local property sales do suggest economic difficulty in Sonoma County, then the years 1894-95 would be a critical indioator since the depression which hit California shortly after May, 1893, would not have been reflected in recorded land sales until that time. If conditions were depressed, then land sales during 1894 and 1895 would 25 Data on mortgage transactions for 1890-1895 were compiled by counting the property sales transactions found in the records of the County Recorder. 25 show a drastic inorease. However, the figures from the oounty's reoords suggest that the opposite occurred. Land sales were 14.6 peroent fewer in 1894 than in 1893, and although 1895 shows an increase of 5.3 percent over 1894, it is about 10 percent less than in 1893. Although the depression of 1893 would have caused a tight money situation which could have discouraged land sales in Sonoma County in 1894, county banks and lending agencies indicate that no shortage of funds existed. In addition, Cross states that by 1894 state banks and financial institutions had returned to a reasonable state of stability. Therefore, decreased land sales probably resulted from stable economio conditions which reduced the need to liquidate land holdings. 26 In addition to stable mortgage transactions, analysis of the assessed evaluation of county property indicates constant growth in personal and real property value from 1890 to 1897. 27 While the incomplete records of assessed evaluation and mortgage transactions do not conclusively show the financial stability of Sonoma County, they do enable a reasonable assumption that Sonoma's economy was less affected by the nationally depressed conditions than were other areas in California and in the nation during the 1890's. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the financial and economic stability in Sonoma County, especially in relation to other areas of the nation, reduced discontent associated with the depression of 1893 and hindered the local Populist Irovement. 26 Cross, Financing an Empire, 587, 591; Sonoma Democrat, July 1, 1893. 27 See Appendix J, 124. 26 In summary, the data suggest that the general economic conditions of the county, the type of crops, the methods of farming and the economic success of the small farmer all deflected the adverse effects of the early 1890's recession which devastated other areas of California's agriculture. These conditions, in addition to change in both distribution and composition of the county's population, to the environmental conditions, and to Catholic immigration, may have combined to dilute the zeal and subsequent support of the farming community for Populist reforms in Sonoma County. 27 Chapter III The Organizations and Events Leading to the Rise of the Peoples I Party in Sonoma County A history of the Sonoma County Peoples' Party would not be complete without mention of earlier agricultural organizations on the national, state and local levels. The idea of the Peoples! Party would grow from an organization that had begun on December 4, 1867, in Washington D.C., with the founding of the Patrons' of Husbandry by Hudson Kelly and William Saunders. In order to overcome both economic and environmental problems of the small, rural and individualistic farmer, the National Grange organized state and local units to provide social, educational and cooperative assistance. 1 The first Grange in California was organized at Pilot Hill on August 10, and the California State Grange was organized in Napa on July 15, 1873, to unite the local Granges. 2 Although the reasons for establishing the California Grange closely paralleled those for the 1 Clarke A. Chambers, California Farm Organizations, (University of California Press: Berkeley, 1952), 9-20; Walters; "California Populism, II 32, 54, 191, 195; George R. Harrison, "The Order of Patrons of Husbandry," Honoria Tuomey, ed., Histor~ of Sonoma County Vol. I (S.V. Clarke Publishing Co., San FranciSCO, 1 26), 669-679. 2 G. N. Whitaker, "Farmers' Organizations in Sonoma County," Thomas Jefferson Gregory, ed., History of Sonoma County, (Lewis Publishing Co" 1889), 224-231. 28 National Grange -- low prices for farm products, high mortgage rates, inelastic currency and credit, and high transportation rates - California farmers faced additional problems such as price monopoly, clouded land titles, confused water rights, a corrupt state government and a constitution in need of revision. To provide leadership and cooperative purchasing power for the Sonoma County farmer, the Sonoma Grange was founded on May 27, 1873, by S.H. Baxter as a non-partisan, non-sectarian association which absorbed the Sonoma Valley Farm Club, the twelve subordinate Granges and other farm societies in the county under one organization. Under the leadership of G.N. Whitaker of Bennett Valley, the Sonoma Grange developed into a well organized and vibrant organization. By uniting the Sonoma farmer in cooperative and political aotion, the local Grange played an important role during the 1870's in tax reform, the formation of a Grange Bank and in cooperative purchasing and marketing associations.3 The economic and political instability that had fueled the Grange's success nationwide in the 1870's was reversed in the 1880's as agricultural conditions improved. The return of prosperity during this period diminished the need for farm organizations and blunted the immediate desire for farm reform. The power of the Grange was further eroded by the small farmer's failure to see that strong, united action was needed to vie with the growth of large, commercial farms which had advanced technology and improved machinery. Additionally, the Grange fell into decline because it had failed to provide strong leadership, a 3 Ibid, 224-226; Tuomey, ed., History of Sonoma County, 669-679. 29 united organization, and the concerted political action needed to secure government assistance in solving the farmers' economic problems. However, with the return of adverse economic and environmental conditions in the early 1890's, the need for a new organization to represent the farmer, the laborer and other minority interests reoccured. 4 Several associations formed to fill the need, such as the Nationalist Clubs and the Farmers' Alliance, although these organizations would prove unsuocessful and give rise to the Peoples' Party. The first of these organizations in California was the Nationalist Clubs which had begun as small clubs in the Boston area around 1888 and had spread rapidly nationwide. Although Oakland labor leader Eugene Hough established the first Nationalist Club in California, Burnette Haskell assumed leadership of the clubs and is chiefly responsible for their growth in the San Francisco area. 5 These clubs were a short-lived, utopian Sooialist movement inspired by Edward Bellamey's Looking Backward published in 1888. Bellamy advocated a nationalized, cooperative state with the economic controls in the hands of the public, thereby replacing private ownership with government control of the means of production. This socialistic ideology made Nationalist Clubs a forerunner of the Farmers' Alliance and 4 Walters, "California Populism, tI 54-56; Walter's study indicates that during this increased prosperity, the Grange enjoyed only limited success and lost much of its political leadership through the ineptness of its leaders and through the lagging interest of its members. Walters further states that by the 1890's the "Grange had entirely lost its political ambition and developed into a social and educational institution. n 5 Donald E. Walters, "The Feud Between California Populist, T.V. Cator, and DeJOOcrats, James McGuire and James Barry," Pacific Historical Review 27:281-298; Nationalis~ II, June, 1890. 30 of the Peoples' Party, both of which also called for government control of transportation and communication. 6 Nationalist Clubs provided a brief, urban phase of Populism in California. Their proposed platform called for monetary reform and free silver, public ownership of transportation, an end to monopolistic land speculation, and direct elections. This platform gave rise to a tremendous growth of the clubs, especially in California. However, lithe Nationalist Phase" of California Populism lasted only a short time because no state organization emerged and because conflict over control and club policy developed between Burnette Haskell, who controlled the northern section of the organization, and Thomas V. Cator, who later became an important leader of the California Peoples' Party. Cator's desire for control and his insistence that the clubs concentrate on reforms in currency and on anti-trust legislation conflicted with Haskell's call for nationalization of private industry.7 The unresolved conflict by the two opposing factions subsequently led to a split in the organization and ushered in the decline of the 6 Weekly Nationalist, I, May 1889, 26. According to this publication, several clubs were established in Sonoma County. However, no description of their activities could be located. Walters, "California Populism, II 21. By early 1890 California contained one-third of all Nationalist Clubs. 7 Walters, "California Populism," 22-23, 38. See Appendix M, 127 for details of Nationalist Platforms. Northern California Nationalist Club activities and Haskell's part therein can be found in the "Haskell Notebook," Vol. 7 and 8, in the Bancroft Library. Delegates from Petaluma, Guerneville and Santa Rosa attended the Nationalist Club convention held in San Francisco on April 8, 1890. The proposed convention platform closely resembled the programs adopted in Sonoma County by the Grangers during the 1870's as well as the platform that would be proposed later by the California Farmers' Alliance. These platforms eventually became important elements of Sonoma County Populism in the 1890's. 31 Nationalist Club movement in California. Furthermore, in an attempt to boost their own political careers, Cator and other Nationalist Club leaders began to join the newly formed California Farmers' Alliance. The existing Nationalist Clubs were absorbed by the Farmers' Alliance, and by December, 1890, had ceased to eXist. 8 During the 1880's the Farmers' Alliance was instituted on a national level by Milton George to revive farm reforms that had started with the Granger movement. 9 The first Farmers' Alliance in California was established in Santa Barbara during December of 1889 under the leadership of Colonel James Barbee. 10 The state organizing convention held in San Jose on November 20, 1890, established the number of Alliance officials, the length of time they could hold office and the voting procedures of the Alliance. 11 Proposals by the Farmers' Alliance were extremely popular and later became important Populist reforms: 1) economy in government, 2) extension of the money supply, and 3) easy credit to be supplied by the govet'nment. l-loping to appeal to the Prohibitionist and Suffrage movements, the Alliance called for the closing of saloons and favored women's suffrage. The Alliance also tried to entice labor by backing an eight hour day and by advocating the abolition of private 8 Rogin, "Populism, 1896,11 15.; Weekley Nationalist, May 1889. Directory inside front cover lists California Clubs, sub alliances and the local units of the State Alliance. 9 Weekly Nationalist, June 1890. In May of 1890 many Nationalists proposed a merger with the Farmers' Alliance. 10 Williams, California Politics, 138; Santa Barbara Press, May 4, 1890. 11 Sonoma Democrat, November 23, 1891. See Appendix M, 127 for the Farmers' Alliance platform. 32 armed police forces. 12 These issues were later included in most Populist viewpoints. Like the Grange, the Farmers' Alliance was important to the farmer as a forum for expressing his discontent and as a means for reversing the economic battle he believed he was losing to the monied interests. The Alliance also became a symbol of class unity with its secrecy and ritual; it provided a sense of professionalism; it gave the farmer a means to seek advancement of his interests. However, the most important accomplishment of the Farmers' Alliance was the establishment of cooperatives which were successful for a short period. The Alliance also called for legislation which demanded the confiscation of railroads delinquent in paying taxes, for direct election of state senators and for collection of taxes on a semi-annual basis. 13 Although the Farmers' Alliance succeeded in achieving some political changes, as the Grange had done earlier, it chose not to enter directly into the political arena by nominating its own candidates. Rather, it followed a policy of limited endorsement of the major parties I candidates who were favored by the Alliance. This course resulted in little election success prior to 1890 and forced the Alliance to formulate policies ranging from boycotting monopolized products to lobbying for favorable legislation. When these measures also failed, it 12 Sonoma Democrat, November 22, February 21, October 5, 1891; Walters, "California Populism," 54-55,70 i Pacific Rural Express X, Novetrber 21, 1890; Goodwyn, The Derrocratic Promise; Hall, "California Populism Tulare County I" 202. 13 Walters, "California Populism," 91-95; Peoples' Rural Express during 1891-1892 contains information regarding the cooperatives; San Luis Obispo Reasoner contains weekly items; San Francisco Call, October 19, 1892, contains articles regarding its collapse. 33 tried to influence the election of friendly candidates as a means of obtaining support for its agrarian causes. This limited political commitment of the Alliance coupled with its inability to display a united front, highlighted a need to merge all agrarian organizations into a united party.14 These Alliance failures paved the road for a third party, the Peoples' Party, as a vehicle for publicizing agrarian discontent and for remedying it through political action. The inability of the Alliance to establish political influence caused Marion Cannon, the state president of the Farmers' Alliance, to issue a call in August of 1891 to organize a California Peoples' Party. Delegates from several farm and labor organizations attended the state convention in Los Angeles on October 22, 1891. To ftJrther Populist interests on the local level, Peoples I Parties were organized in the various counties of the state. Sonoma County's Peoples' Party was established on April 9, 1892.15 Sonoma's local party included many members and leaders who had been active in the Grange, Nationalist Clubs and the Farmers' Alliance. G.N. Whitaker, an original Populist leader, had played an important role in the establishment of the Sonoma County Grange. The Weekly Nationalist of June 1890 listed Populists Phillip Cowen, C.W. OtiS, W.B. Bagley and A.B. Fisher as leaders of their respective Nationalist Clubs in Sonoma County. C.W. Otis became secretary of the Peoples' Party; W.B. Bagley 14 Williams, California Politics, 138; Walters, "California Populism, II 90. 15 Sonoma Democrat, April 9, 1892; Sonoma Democrat, October 5, 1891. The Sonoma County Farmers' Alliance was formed in October of 1891 and was replaced in April of 1892 by the Peoples I Party. 34 ran for supervisor on the Populist ticket in the Fifth District; Phillip Cowen and A.B. Fisher are listed as members of the Peoples' Party in 1892. Jonathan Roberts had been the county president of the Farmers' Alliance and ran for sheriff as a Populist in 1892 while W.H. Osborn, an Alliance member, was elected to the central committee of the Sonoma County Peoples' Party. Inspired by Populist success on the local level in the 1890 elections, the National Peoples' Party met in Omaha, Nebraska on July 4, 1892, to develop a platform and to nominate James B. Weaver for President. The Peoples' Party hoped to become a national party in order to attract labor and other reform groups. 16 With the formation of the Peoples' Party on the national, state and local levels, Sonoma County's party activities in the elections of 1892, 1894 and 1896 need to be examined to determine the local party's influence on these elections. 16 Walters, "California Populism," 124-128; Los Anfieles Alliance Family, August 27, 1891, October 22-29, 1891; Pacific Rural Express XLII, October 31, 1891; Western Watchman, November 7, 1891. 35 Chapter IV The Establishment of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County and The Election of 1892 The 1892 election was important to the history of Populism in Sonoma County. It marked the emergence of the Peoples' Party as the political representative of the farmer, a strong economic force in the county. Although prevailing local conditions seem to have mitigated against Populist success, and the oounty farmer had a history of minimal support for previous agricultural organizations, nevertheless the impaot of the Peoples' Party on Sonoma County's 1892 election appears signifioant. Examination of the events leading to the establishment of the county Peoples' Party and analysis of its effect on that election will clarify the contribution of this young party. At the Farmers' Alliance convention in Los Angeles during the summer of 1891, a meeting of leaders from farm, labor and reform organizations was proposed to form a California Peoples' Party. That convention, held on October 22, 1891, established the state party and approved the earlier platform adopted on May 19 in Cincinnati by the National Peoples' Party. 1 The convention was composed largely of 1 Donald E. Walters, "The Feud Between California Populist T.V. Cator and Demorats James MoGuire and James Barry," Pacific Historical Review, 27, 287. Sonoma County was represented at this convention by J.M. Sullivan and G.N. Whitaker, the former president of the Sonoma Grange. 36 Alliance members who, while retaining membership in the Alliance, also joined the Peoples' Party which was established as a vehicle for political action to relieve widespread agrarian discontent prevalent in California. Establishment of the state Peoples' Party led to the birth of local Populist parties in various counties. The Sonoma Democrat of April 9, 1892, reported that a convention was called by a member of the State Central Committee, W.H. Osborn of Sonoma, to elect officers of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County. About forty people attended the meeting at Santa Rosa's Germania Hall. J.L. Gilbert of Fresno, a delegate to the St. Louis conference, presented the preamble and platform of the National Peoples' Party.2 During the afternoon session, Gilbert attempted to dispell the notion that the Peoples' Party was merely an extension of the Farmers' Alliance. He stated that the meeting should not be construed as an Alliance meeting merely because he and many others present were Alliance members. Since most Alliance meetings, like those of the Grange and the Farm Institute, were generally social and educational affairs, Gilbert insisted that this meeting rust be a "political affair", and he pointed out the political issues facing Sonoma while streSSing the question of free silver and coinage. At the convention A.L. Warner, a farmer and viticulturalist from Healdsburg, was elected permanent chairman and C.W. Otis, a Petaluma 2 Sonoma Democrat, April 9, 1892. The Peoples' Party of Sonoma was formed three months before the National Party's first convention. W.H. Osborn, a farmer from Occidental, was elected temporary chairman; D.P. Rice, a former Prohibitionist and laborer from Occidental, was elected temporary secretary. 37 teacher, secretary. The County Central Committee was also elected with each township having one representative. The meeting closed with postponement of nominations to the county's Populist ticket until a meeting of the Central Committee could be called.3 The first meeting of the Sonoma County's Peoples' Party was held on April 9, 1892, the week of Santa Rosa's municpal election. The party had not formed in time to enter the city's election and did not establish a local municipal party until the 1896 election. Walters suggested that the reason for a lack of local political interest by the Populists in California was their belief in the need to concentrate on national party issues and offices. 4 This interest in only national party issues may have been the reason why the local Peoples' Party did not organize in time for the Santa Rosa municipal election of 1892 and did not participate in any local municipal election in 1892 and 1894. Choosing to concentrate its effort on county, state and national elections, the County Central Committee of the Peoples' Party met at Germania Hall on June 15, 1892. Headed by A.L. Warner, the meeting considered, as he put it, lithe most important question since the Declaration of Independence in 1775. [sicJ" According to the Sonoma Democrat of September 22, 1894, Warner, the county treasurer and member of the State Committee on Platforms and Resolutions, was a farmer who had resided in the Russian River area for over nineteen years since migrating to Sonoma from New York. A former Republican, Warner exemplified the 3 Ibid. E.A. Howe, a farmer from Fulton, A.L. Warner from Healdsburg, W.H. Osborn from Windsor and E.G. Furber, a farmer from Cloverdale, were ohosen as representatives to the state convention. 4 Walters, "California Populism, n 153-236. 38 many Republicans who joined the Populists in 1892, thereby reducing the political power of the Republican Party. Warner voiced strong sentiment against railroad corruption and machine politics, and his opening statement called for the return of government to the people. He also stated that "the Peoples I Party rust demand justice," a conviction apparently shared by many Populists. 5 With these words Warner must have alluded to those who held the major political and economic power of the county when he inferred that "the great parties of the day" as well as big business were treating those of lesser power unfairly. The convention's clOSing activities of the morning included the election of Jonathan Roberts as chairman and C.W. Otis of Petaluma as secretary, the appointment of committees of organization and the passage of resolutions. Otis called for adjournment of the meeting until 1:00 p.m. with a summary of what the organization had to achieve. He felt that the people knew there was a great need for governmental reform; he believed, however, that the party's most important problem was in finding the way to carry out these needed reforms. Otis insisted that !fin order to keep down the rascals in power, II the Populists rust look to the referendum. Before adjournment, Cowen, Warner and Osborn also spoke regarding the need to reinstate pure government and the need for free and unlimited coinage of silver. Because of its national prominence, the coinage question was beginning to emerge in the rhetoric of the Populists in Sonoma County as the most important element in their program. County 5 Sonoma Democrat, June 18, 1892. 39 Populists believed that an expansion of the money supply would inflate currency and raise farm prices, income and profit. 6 The convention reconvened for the afternoon session with a report by the Corrmittee on Permanent Organizations which recommended that "the temporary officers be made permanent. If This recommendation was followed by a report from the Committee on Resolutions which included the following resolutions: "Resolved: That we adopt the national platform of the St. Louis and state platforms as adopted in Stockton. Resolved: That we recommend to the American voter the study of the referendum, the imperative mandate, and also proportional representation. Resolved: That we reaffirm the state platforms of the Peoples' Party adopted in Los Angeles, October 22, 1891." A complete county Populist ticket was nominated with candidates for all major offices, and a Sonoma County Peoples' Party platform was passed which contained only national party issues. 7 With the organization and structure of the county party established, it was now necessary for the local party, as well as the state and national party, to put its campaign into operation. In California the most important Populist reform demand was the elimination of the railroad monopoly and of high railroad rates. The 6 Ibid. The Committee on Organization consisted G.N. Whitaker of Santa Rosa, A. Johnson of Petaluma, A.L. Warner of Healdsburg, E.L. Furber of Cloverdale and W.H. Osborne of Forrestville. The Committee on Resolutions included D.P. Price of Occidental, P. Cowen of Petaluma, La Rue of Cloverdale and L. Brittan of Santa Rosa. 7 Ibid. See Appendix M, 127. 40 need for railroad reform was magnified during the 1890's by deteriorating conditions in the economic climate of the state. In addition, rail rates were higher in California than in the eastern states which gave the eastern interests an advantage over California merchants and farmers t and farmers complained vigorously. The Southern Pacific became the convenient target of California Populists during the campaign of 1892; Northern California Populists called for government ownership of the railroad and for rate reduction. These demands became the major platform policies of both the state and national Populists until 1896 when fusion and the silver question replaced all prior concerns. 8 Sonoma County differed from other areas of the state regarding the railroad controversy because it was not completely dependent on the main railroads for delivery of its products to San Francisco, the major center of California corrmerce. Sonoma County emerged as the only county in the state which had three distinct and separate rail systems and an excellent water transportation system. These conditions relieved the county from the influence of major railroads.9 During the 1890's, as in the 1870's, Sonoma County residents favored higher local transportation rates. A lowering of railroad rates as proposed by the state for these small, independent county lines would have made profit impossible and bankruptcy inevitable. It would have also displaced the small, indigenous operators who had an interest in the 8 Williams, California Politics, 162, 184; Walters, "California Populism, It 6-7, 16, 182; Ward M. McAfee, "Local Interest and the Railroad Regulation 1n California During the Granger Decade,lf Pacific Historical Review, 54-57. 9 Sonoma Democrat, December 24, 1892, July 21, 1894. 41 local welfare with a large corporation which was indifferent to local needs. County residents and local legislators generally supported J.F. Burgin, the president of the San Francisco and Northern Pacific, when he argued before the Railroad Commission in Sacramento against reducing rail fares and freight charges in Sonoma County. The editor of the Sonoma IndeX-Tribune, reflecting the apparent sentiment of the citizens of Sonoma, reported in December of 1892 that the San Francisco and Northern Pacific had always been one of the best paying railroad properties of its size in the United states and had always been friendly to the people where it operated. 10 While the state Populist Party placed major emphasis on the railroad question in its 1892 campaign, Sonoma Populists emphasized free silver which would become a main issue nationally, statewide and in Sonoma County during both the 1894 and 1896 elections. 11 Although California Populists included currency reform in their party platform, they believed that most of their problems stemmed from railroad monopoly and excessive transportation costs. 12 Not until after the election of 1892 did silver become the main issue in California politics. As popular sentiment in the Democratic Party united behind the pro-silver forces against Cleveland, the Republicans incorporated silver into their platform, and the Populists replaced their cry for railroad reform with the cry for free silver. The 10 Assemblyman Godchaux's State Constitutional Amendment regarding railroad rates, 13th session of the State Legislature, July 11, 1893. Sonoma Index-Tribune, Dec. 24, 1892. 11 Sonoma Index-Tribune, December 24, 1892. 12 Williams, California Politics, 185. 42 growing importance of silver is evidenced by the many pro-silver meetings held in San Francisco, Sonoma and other California communities. 13 However, Sonoma County's Populists had already adopted free silver as their main reform demand. The importance of silver and currency reform in Sonoma County Populism became apparent through the party's platform and the rhetoric of the Peoples' Party candidates during the campaign of 1892. In talks before large meetings of Sonoma County residents and at party conventions, state Populist J.L. Gilbert and county Populists such as Warner, Jonathan Roberts, Otis, Cowen and others emphasized the free silver platform of the National Populist Party as the means of currency reform. 14 Prior to California's election of 1890, dissatisfaction with excessive statewide expenditures approved by the Democrats increased the factionalism which had developed within the Democratic Party, and when coupled with Stanford's well-financed Republican campaign, it had proven a disaster for the Democrats at election time. Many Democrats had left the party to vote Republican and thus helped the Republican Party gain control of the state government. However, the opposite had occurred at the national level as the Democrats had won overwhelming victories because of the eleotorate's dissatisfaction with excessive Republican expenditures in the form of appropriations, subsides and pension grants as well as with the high cost of the McKinley Tariff. 15 13 San Francisco Examiner, July 23, 1893. 14 Sonoma Democrat, April 19, 1892, June 18, 1892. 15 Williams, California Politics, 157-160. 43 Although the California Democratic Party lost legislative strength as a result of the 1890 election, the party approached the election of 1892 with renewed confidence because of serious problems dividing the Republicans. The Republican Party was replete with personal animosities and ambitions, divided by patronage grievances and torn by the election of Leland Stanford to the senate. The Democrats believed that a divided Republican Party would cause many Republicans to align with the newly established Peoples' Party because of the aggressive platform it had established at the Omaha convention. If the Republican defections to the Peoples' Party were substantial, then the Democrats knew that their chances in the 1892 election would be improved by reducing the Republican majority especially in the economically depressed Republican counties of Southern California. Early polls in California promised that the Populists would draw away numerous Republican votes, and the Peoples' Press predicted that the Peoples' Party would reduce the Republican vote by over seventy-five percent. 16 Given a Republican Party divided and a Populist Party grown in political strength, the California Democrats believed that success in the presidential election of 1892 was assured. They nominated Grover Cleveland for president on the first ballot despite resentment against his patronage policy and his silVer letter. 17 However, under the 16 Ibid, 160-185. The platform called for election and legislative reforms, immediate action in regulating big business, and the abolishment of poverty. 17 Ibid, 146-185. The silver letter condemned free silver agitation and was issued in the hope of stemming the growing belief that Cleveland favored free silver. It also predicted disaster if a free silver policy continued. 44 leadership of T.V. Cator and Marion Cannon, the Peoples' Party in California emerged as a political power strong enough to cause the Democratic Party to seek fusion with the state Populists in the 1892 election. 18 California Democratic-Populist associations were formed on the local level in 1892 to unite candidates through fusion in opposition to the Republican Party machinery.19 However, in Sonoma County for reasons still undetermined, fusion between the Democrats and Peoples' Party candidates did not occur in the election of 1892. Ballots printed in the October 1892, Sonoma Democrat show that local Populist candidates fused with Prohibitionists for all offices except coroner-public administrator and surveyor. 20 These respective candidates ran as Populist-Republican candidates. Therefore, Sonoma County Populism, having fused with the Prohibitionists and Republicans, differed from state and national Populism which had fused many candidates with the Derrocrats to defeat the Republican Party. Although the Peoples' Party was gaining political importance nationally and within the state, it failed to establish itself locally at the municipal level. With the exception of Santa Rosa in 1896, the municipal elections in Sonoma County were either non-partisan or included 18 Royce D. Delmatier, The Rumble in California Politics 1840-1920, (New York: Wiley, 1970), 99-120; Donald E. Walters, "California Populist T.V. Cator and Democrats James Maguire and James Burke," Paoific Historical Review 37, August 1958, 281-98; Williams, California Politics, 160. 19 Walters, "California Populism, n 153-236. 20 Sonoma Derrocrat, October 24, 1892, October 29, 1892. The 1892 ballot listed nine Peoples' Party candidates and a Peoples' Party candidate for oongress in addition to the local fusion candidates. ~5 no Populist candidates throughout the 1890's. Santa Rosa's city elections of April 1892 resulted in the election of seven Republican candidates to four Democratic candidates making it a Republican victory. Following the direction set in 1892, Santa Rosa's elections in 1894 and 1896, respectively, secured two more Republican victories. 21 Despite Republican success in Santa Rosa, the Democrats achieved an overwhelming victory in the county elections of 1892 by electing ten candidates to the Republican's two. This change in voter preference indicates first, that the entrance of the Peoples'/Prohlbitionist Party probably swayed enough Republican voters from their party to insure a Democratic victory, and second, that the strength of the Democratic Party lay in the rural areas of the county which was also the Peoples' Party's major source of strength. 22 21 Sonoma Democrat, December 3, 1892. The Santa Rosa City election of 1892 shows activity by the two major parties only. The Republicans elected the mayor, W.F. Woodward, two councilmen and seven minor officials. The Democrats elected the city clerk, city attorney and three minor officials. These results differed from those of 1890 when the Democrats had elected the mayor and five city officers while the Republicans had elected only four candidates. 22 Rogin, "California Populism and the System of 1896, It 179-196. Apparently the Peoples' Party lacked appeal to the urban section of the state. According to Rogin and Shover, the scene of California Populism'S greatest election sucoess appeared in the rural, agricultural, native stock (non-immigrant) sections of the state. For example, the Peoples' Party polled only 2,500 votes in San Francisco for president, which was less than five percent of the toal votes cast. By comparison, the Peoples' Party voting precentage of the town vote was often as high as twenty percent and in rural precencts it often ran between forty and seventy percent; Hall, "California Populism in Tulare County," 193. Complete 1892 election data could not be located in the county offices, the local and state libraries, the local newspapers nor in the California Blue Book for 1893. Therefore, Rogin's findings cannot be applied to Sonoma County for this election. 46 TABLE 3 ELECTION RESULTS: SONOMA COUNTY 1892 (M* Indicates Successful Candidate) POPULIST AND OFFICE PROHIBITIoNIST vote---- % DEMOCRATS vote -L Assembly 16 J. Johnson 165 4.7 *f E.L. Dress 1701 48.7 Assembly 17 E.G. Furber 57 2.0 *f J.C. Sims 1529 54.7 Sheriff J. Roberts 363 6.0 W.H. Poterfield 2610 42.5 County Clerk C.S. Gibson f* W.F. Wines 3216 County Treas. W.H. Hodgson ** P.N. Stefen 3314 Aud /Controller A. Galloway ** G.P. Hall 3231 Coroner *A .J. Blaney ** H. W. Ungewitter 3012 Surveyor *L. Rickseeker *f P.R. Davis 3396 Dist. Attorney ** E. Seawell 3424 District 5 J .W. Bagley ** J. Joost Supervisors P. H• Thompson ** J.W. Hall OFFICE REPUBLICANS vote ...L Assembly 16 F. Murphy 1630 46.4 Assembly 17 M.K. Cady 1212 !i3.3 Sheriff **S.I. Allen 3160 51.5 County Clerk S.B. Fulton 3175 County Treas. A. Bryant 3072 Aud/Controller A.J. Atchinson 2902 Coroner A.J. Blaney 2893 Surveyor L. Rickseeker 2733 Dist. Attorney W.F. Russel 3124 District 5 T.J. Gould Supervisors Putnam **J. W. Sales 1892 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS OFFICE CANDIDATE VOTE ..L PARTY Pres. Electors *IG. Cleveland 3485 50.1 Deoocrat B. Harrison 2991 43.0 Republican Weaver 297 4.3 Populist Bidwell 185 2.6 Prohibitionist Congressman ** Geary 3981 64.2 Deroocrat Davis 2049 32.9 Republican Swafford 258 2.9 Populist/Prohibitionist ELECTION SUMMARY: Successful Candidates = 10 Deoocrats, 2 Republicans Vote Percentages = 52.5 Deroo., 43.9 Rep., 3.6 Pop. *Candidate ran as Populist/Republican SOURCE: Sonoma Democrat, October 21, 1892; California Bluebook 1893; Sonoma Index-Tribune, November 19, 1892. In 1892 California cast its vote for a Democratic president for the first time in twelve years, although Grover Cleveland's vote statewide exceeded the Republican's by only 147. The reason for Cleveland's victory in California was James B. Weaver, the presidential candidate of the Peoples' Party. Although Weaver's share of the vote was small, only nine percent, it was large enough to influence the outcome of the election by drawing Republican voters from strategic Republican areas of Southern California. Also, Marion Cannon, the Democratic Party candidate for Congress, would not have been elected without Populist support. Eight seats in the legislature went to Populist candidates, five of these in conjunction with Democrats, two with support of Republicans and one elected on a straight ticket. According to available Sonoma County voting records for state and national condidates, the Democrats, with Grover Cleveland as their presidential candidate, received a majority of county electorial votes. The number of third party votes (483) for preSidential electors was so small that it was insignificant to the election outcome. 23 The Democrats received 3,485 votes or 50.1 percent, the Republicans, 2,991 or 43.0 percent, the Peoples' Party, 297 or 4.3 peroent and the Prohibitionists, 23 Sonoma Democrat, December 3, 1892. A comparison of Sonoma County elections shows that in 1892 the Demoorats, as in 1888, received a majority vote for president and congressman on the national level. The Democrats had elected the governor in 1890 as well, although the Republicans had received a majority vote for all seven state oadidates. The vote for county offices in 1888 shows that the Republicans received a majority vote for six out of ten oandidates, a victory which reversed the trend of the 1890 and 1892 county elections when the Democrats had elected eight of twelve candidates and eleven of twelve candidates, respectively. Despite the formidable success of the Democratic Party in those local elections, Sonoma County remained Republioan throughout most of the 1890's. 48 185 or 2.6 percent. The county Democrats also elected Thomas Geary congressman on the national level, two asemblyman on the state level and eight out of ten candidates on the county level. The results of the 1892 elections on the state and local l~vels, and especially the vote for presidential electors, were generally characterized by a close popular vote, with the outcome greatly affected by third party politics. The defeat of the Republican Party in this election indicated that the entrance of the Peoples' Party probably affected this election by drawing voters away from the Republican Party. Despite the decision of the national and state party to fuse with the Democrats, the attempt by the county Populist Party to "go it alone" or to align with the Prohibitionists during this election proved a setback for the local party. This election convinced many local Populists of the need to align with the Democratic Party in 1894 if the party were to be successfu1.24 24 Sonoma Democrat, May 28, 1893. The Sonoma County Peoples' Party was further weakened by the type of candidates they chose as well as by their failure to follow the example of the state and national party which had fused with the Democrats. In this election most Peoples' Party candidates were farmers who had little political experience, but this Situation would change by 1896 with the fusion of Populists and Democrats and the emergence of party leaders with professional and political background. However, with professional and business leaders assuming a major role in party affairs, the farmer would lose control of his party. Another factor that may have hindered the Populist Party's ability to garner more voting power in county for state and national office elections was the reduction of the county's total population in relation to the rest of the state. Representation was reapportioned from three to two districts: the new Sixteenth consisted of the Township of Analy, Bodega, Mendocino, Petaluma, Ocean, Redwood, Salt Point and Vallejo. The Seventeenth was comprised of Santa Rosa, Knight Valley and Cloverdale. This reduction in assembly district representation in 1892 concentrated Republican and Democratic power and may have further diminished Populist power. 49 Chapter V The Election of 1894 On May 3, 1893, panic engulfed the stock market as the British banking firm, Baring Brothers, collapsed. This failure drained United States' gold reserves and brought on the collapse of the stock market and a severe depression throughout the nation. Cleveland's currency policy restricted the money supply and extended the effects of the depression despite a $90 million gold surplus created by halting the gold supplied to Europe. 1 Williams, Walters and Cross concluded that this economic downfall reached California more quickly than previous depressions and had a drastic effect on California's economy, especially agriculture. 2 Commenting on the financial conditions in California, the Sacramento Bee reported on May 5, 1893, that the State Investment and Insurance Corporation had failed. This news was followed by a report in the Sacramento Evening News which claimed that the state was bankrupt. The News stated that the tax rate limit of fifty cents caused appropriations to exceed income by $1 million and exhausted the general fund.3 1 Williams, California Politics, 165-180; Sonoma Democrat, May 16, 1893. The Petaluma Courier, May 16, 1893, ran a Washingtion report issued r~ay 10 explaining gold reserves. 2 Williams, California Politics, 177-179; Walters, "California Populism," 1-20; Cross, Financing an El!lPire t 587-591. 3 Sacramento Bee, May 5, 1893; Sacramento Evening News, May 16, 1893. 50 Consequently, banks throughout the state called in or refused to make loans which created havoc especially for the wheat and fruit farmers who depended on loans against their crops in order to operate. Although most banks were solvent, with assets in excess of liabilities, many closures resulted from a lack of ready capital. 4 Local bankers insisted, and this study concurs, that the economic setback did not affect Sonoma County banking as greatly as it had affected other areas within the state because the Sonoma banks had maintained a conservative position during the early 1890's. A minor financial crisis in 1890 had convinced local banks and lending institutions to follow sound financial principles by maintaining assets in excess of liabilities, by eliminating speculative and reckless loans, and by insisting on sound securities. The Sonoma banking community believed that a shortage of local money did not exist and that the "current financial trumoil was ephemeral and did not need to extend to the entire community. 115 According to the national and state Populists, this depression hurt farming more than other sectors of the economy. However, the nationally depressed economy had only minor effects on Sonoma County agriculture, and a relatively prosperous local economy mitigated against the immediate need for local Populist reforms. Regardless of this and 4 Williams, California Politics, 177-179; The closing of many canneries added to the plight of the farmer. The State Board of Viticulture stated that the grape and wine market was at a record low. It was generally recognized by the financial community that a percentage of the banks within the state had been forced to close as the panic frightened depositors into withdrawal of their funds. 5 Sonoma Democrat, July 1, 1893; Williams, California Politics, 177 179. 51 other factors unfavorable to local Populist success, such as organizational and policy problems, the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County achieved its greatest success in the election of 1894 as did the party on all levels throughout the nation. Although the depression doomed many Populist farmers in California, the Peoples' Party was confident it could use this economic setback to expound upon the need for free coinage and make inroads against the power of the two major parties which were divided on the money question. Taggart in "California and the Silver Question in 1895, II Walters in "Populism in California 1899-1900," and Williams in California Politics all concluded that the silver issue arose in 1893-94 and became a useful device for swinging public opinion toward Populist programs. Even though silver proved useful, it also threatened to establish a "one program party" instead of the balanced platform previously proposed by the national, state and local parties. 6 TI1e Eureka Watchman presented the prevailing opinion of California Populists by stating that most Populists cared little about free silver. Populists favored paper currency as legal tender although they were willing to include silver into their programs as a means of expanding the volume of money. A committee of Populists reflecting on 6 H.F. Taggart, "California and the Silver Question in 1895," Pacific Historical Quarterly VI, September, 1937, 255-60. Nationally the silver issue had dated back to the adoption of bimetallic standard in 1792. The current silver problems had begun with the passage of the Bland Silver Act in 1878. The object of this law had been to restore Silver to its place as legal tender at the rate of 16-1 and to place large amounts of silver into circulation each year. In July, 1890, the Republicans had passed the Sherman Act calling for the monthly purchase and issuance of Treasury Notes in predetermined amounts redeemable in gold or silver. The act over taxed the capacity of government finances and was repealed in 1892. 52 the silver question issued the following resolve: Resolved, that we favor the government issue of treasury notes to be made a fUll and legal tender ••• and the discontinuance of coinage of both gold and silver. "7 By the election of 1894 the silver issue was replaced by a balanced platform and was no longer the major issue of the Populist campaign, but it would rise again as an even more important issue in 1895 and 1896. The People's Party failure to maintain a balanced program in 1896 was a major cause of its decline and defeat in that election. The Peoples' Party in California, not wanting to repeat the mistakes of the 1892 election when it had forfeited control of the party by fUsing with the Democrats, decided early in 1894 to avoid fUsion with either the Republicans or Democrats. In an attempt to regain control of their party, the Populists held a middle-of-the-road persuasion in which unity was maintained and fUsion discarded. 8 For the 1894 election the party waged a vigorous campaign, causing Democrat R.H. Beamer to state in June I "I think the Republicans will carry the state [but] the Populists will poll 60,000 votes .••my greatest fear is the Populists. n9 Rather 7 San Luis Obispo Reasoner, August 3, 1893; Walters I "California Populism," 236-237. Despite these complioations, Taggart concluded in his article, "California and the Silver Question in 1895,11 that California Populists adopted the silver issue in response to the state's mining tradition, to pressure from mining interests in the state and to California's trade relations with other nearby mining communities. On the other hand Rogin believed the depression of 1893 also influenced Populist thought on silver because Populists believed silver coinage would boost wages, restore prosperity, raise farm prices and bring speedy relief to hardship areas. 8 Taggart, "Populist Feud," 292. 9 Taggart. "Cator , II 49. 53 than fusion with the Democrats, the Peoples' Party sought a union with labor to form a strong farm-labor party. 10 Alexander Saxon, in "San Francisco Labor and Populist Progressive Insurgencies," concluded that 1894 was the year of the Populists' greatest success, and this gain was partly due to the "favorable though not spectacular, response from San Francisco labor voters. 1I11 Walters believed Populists' relations with labor had been enhanced through aid rendered Coxey's armies in 1894 by the urban wing of the Populist Party. Coxeyism and the Great Railway Strike had tremendous effect on Northern California and Populism due to the industrial nature of San Francisco's economy and its dependence upon the major railroads. The extent of Sonoma County's support for Coxeyism cannot be substantiated by this research, but local Populists were strong advocates of the striking railroaders. Since the county was not dependent upon the major railroads, local Populists had little to lose by supporting the railroaders and much to gain by winning labor's allegiance, a loyalty which both the state and national party had failed to attract. 12 10 Ibid., 50. 11 Alexander Saxon, "San Francisco Labor and Populist and Progressive Insurgencies, II Pacific Historical Review, (November, 1965), 421-438. Saxon assumed labor'S favorable response was due to: 1) issues raised by Populists which were favorable to labor, 2) PopUlist use of circumstances that arose to their advantage (Coxeyism and railway strike) and 3) effort of some trade-labor leaders who were sympathetic to Populism. 12 Walters, "California Populism, rr 260-261. The San Francisco mayor, a "quasi-Populist, II garnered over fifty percent of the city's vote. His success was made possible by befriending labor during the strikes in San Francisco. Petaluma Courier, July 3, 1894; Sonoma Democrat, Dec. 24, 1892, July 21, 1894. See quote p.58. 54 Although urban Populism was largely involved in these issues, a major portion of Populist power was located in the rural areas which had little interest in the problems of unemployed labor and striking railroaders. Rural Populists believed that the ballot, not the strike, offered the best weapon for improving the conditions of the farmer. 13 The Peoples! Party, in an attempt to convince the public that it was the only true reform party, played down the Republican issue of tariffs and attempted to discredit the Republicans by pointing out that they had adopted a silver policy on the state level and a gold policy on the national level. The Populists also rejected Cleveland and hoped to tarnish the Democratic Party's image on railroad reform by emphasizing to the voters that the Democratic Party had abandoned railroad reform when it withdrew its support from the striking American Railway Union. 14 Furthermore, nationally as well as locally, the Democratic Party suffered from the lack of skilled leadership and from unfavorable economic conditions which hindered its attempts to solidify the gains made in the 1892 election. Having attempted to discredit the major parties, the Populists needed to solve their own leadership problems. Both the state and national parties had leaders who attempted to obtain federal patronage from the Democrats for both past and future services and others who tried to improve their political careers by frequently changing parties. Michael Rogin and John Shover, 14 Walters, "California Populism," 286. 55 Recurring conflict arose between the apparent opportunists and the party loyalists who were dedicated to the party as an instrument of needed reform. 15 However, the Peoples' Party, especially in California, was unable to resolve its internal problems, a factor which undoubtedly contributed to its impending decline. Lacking municipal leadership and the desire to form a municipal party, Sonoma County Populists did not change their local policy regarding the Santa Rosa municipal election or those of other townships in 1894; there were no entries by the Populist Party in these elections. There also appears to have been no appreciable change in political sentiment of Santa Rosans in 1894 because the city's Republican Party again emerged victorious. Republicans elected eight candidates as opposed to three Democrats, but the total votes cast by the Republicans was only seventy more than the total popular vote for the Democratic candidates, and the total Republican vote was only thirty more than in the previous election. 16 Consequently, the Republicans, although victorious, appear to have declined in political power in Santa Rosa's 1894 municipal election, a trend that would continue into the election of 1896. The political pot commenced to simmer as the county Populist Convention began its work in Santa Rosa's Armory Hall on May 12, 1894. Conflict arose within the party over the terms of the resolutions 15 Williams, California Politics, 164-173; Walters, "California Populism," 357. 16 Sonoma Democrat, April 7, 1894. Santa Rosa election results for 1890 show that the Democrates elected 7 candidates to 4 Republicans while the 1892 results show 8 Republicans and 3 Democrats. 56 proposed, the delegates to the state convention and the numerical makeup of the county committees. A.L. Warner of Healdsburg, J.C. Davis of Petaluma and E. L. Furber of Cloverdale were chosen delegates to the state convention. It was decided that the county committee would consist of two delegates for each township plus an additional delegate for Santa Rosa, Healdsburg and Petaluma. 17 A resolution was passed which accepted the Omaha Platform and the platform of the State Labor Congress which condemned fusion as destructive to the party and which supported a local issue favoring government aid to irrigation of arid lands. 18 As the general election approached, another Populist convention was called on June 15 which met in Santa Rosa to nominate candidates and adopt the party platform. The convention, chaired by S.F. Peck, was well represented by all districts within Sonoma County_ Nominations included S.F. Peck for senator, Allan R. Galloway by acclamation in the Sixteenth Assembly District and J.W. Keegan by unanimous vote in the Seventeenth District. Keegan was a Santa Rosa councilman, prosperous businessman and merchant while Galloway was a prominent horticulturalist and farmer from Healdsburg. The convention closed with a motion to endorse the Populist Platform announced at Omaha, Nebraska. 19 17 Alternate delegates to the state convention were G.N. Whitaker of Bennett Valley, J. Roberts of Santa Rosa, H.D. Wagnon of Santa Rosa and S.F. Peck of Cloverdale. The awarding of an additional delegate for Santa Rosa, Healdsburg and Petaluma indicates the growing importance and political power of the town vote. 18 Petaluma Courier, May 4, 1894; Sonoma Index-Tribune, May 5, 1894. 19 Sonoma Democrat, June 15, 1894. 57 With the formation of a county party platform, Populist leaders held local meetings to clarify the Populist position on the main issues. Accordingly, Thomas V. Cator proclaimed by many to be the leader of the Peoples' Party in California, presented the basic tenets of the Populist Party Platform in a speech at Santa Rosa on July 4, 1894. Gator called for free coinage of silver, government ownership of railroads and reforms in currency, all of which he believed were major problems to be addressed rather than tariffs. The people, Cator insisted, had been enslaved by the money powers, and this enslavement could only be reversed by currency reform. This Populist leader defined the problem as too little money in circulation which could only be rectified by increasing the supply of paper currency backed by the government. Furtherroore, Cator stated that California's economy was prosperous in 1886 because the amount of currency in circulation was $52 per capita while in 1894 it had dropped to (~12 per capita. In short, this constriction of currency caused the price of products and labor to drop and created hardships for farmers and laborers. 20 In a subsequent meeting held on October 10 in Athenaeum Hall, national and state issues were emphasized. S.F. Peck, the candidate for senator, called for government reforms and stressed currency problems as the caUse of hard times and unemployment. J.V. Webster, the Populist candidate for governor, stated that as in the past, the farmer had reacted to falling prices by increasing production which, in turn, led to lower prices. However, he insisted that the farm problems were not due to over production but rather to under consumption. Webster believed 20 Sonoma Deroocrat, July 21, 1894. 58 that a majority of the people were unable to earn enough by their labor to purchase the necessities of life. The Populists, according to Webster, believed that by increasing the money supply of the consumer a corresponding increase in his purchasing power would enable him to purchase more farm products. Thus, the Populists saw the constriction of the money supply as the cause of the depression which could only be remedied by an expansion of that supply. In addition, Webster believed that tariffs were a minor issue because they should be used only for generating government revenue rather than for restricting imports. 21 When addreSSing the issue of party membership, Webster indicated the significance of the shift by both Democrats and Republicans to the People's Party. He believed that the majority of Populists were former Democrats and exclaimed, "if you scratch the back of a Populist, you will find a Democrat." He added, however, that in districts which were strongly Republican in 1892 a majority of the Populists would be former Republicans. 22 In October Congressman Maguire, a noted jurist, statesman, orator and prominent Democrat addressed a large audience in Santa Rosa at the Athenaeum and set the stage for separate Populist and Democratic platforms in the upcoming county election. Maguire stated that no Democrat should vote the Populist ticket although he believed that the two parties should unite since both were working for the same ends. The Populists, be inSisted, were supporters of Democratic principles, but the 21 Sonoma Democrat, October 13, 1894. The inability to earn adequate compensation for their labor bad been a cry of the Grangers over a decade earlier. 22 Ibid. 59 Democrats could not vote the Populist tioket because of the Populist socialistic ideology calling for government control of wealth, production and transportation. The Democrats, he noted, only called for an end to the monopoly of all enterprises for the general utility. Therefore, Maguire proposed that the Populists join the Democrats because only within his party could the Populist principles be accomplished. 23 Meanwhile, Populism continued to expand locally with the establishment of additional Populist Clubs. The Sonoma Index-Tribune reported that Healdsburg had formed a Populist Club with a membership of over fifty; the Petaluma Courier reported that a meeting of the Petaluma Peoples' Party Club was held on July 3 with about twenty members and "their ladies." This club elected officers and adopted the following resolution: I~e, the Peoples' Party Club of Petaluma express our heartfelt sympathy with the American Railway Union in its effort to maintain its rights for honorable livelihood and to uphold the dignity of labor against corporate greed and rapacity, and we appreciate its moderation in these trying circumstances in its efforts in maintaining order and absence of violations of law. 1124 A split in .the Petaluma club occurred on August 1~, however, as some members met to form the East Petaluma Peoples' Party Club. About 23 Ibid. 24 Petaluma Courier, July 3, 1894. Officers elected were S.F. Peck as president; H. Johnson, vice president; D. Gutermute, secretary; S.M. Norton, treasurer. Sonoma Index Tribune cited in Petaluma Courier of July 3, 1984. 60 twenty men combined to establish a constitution and bylaws and to elect Fred Carply temporary chairman and Mr. Scott treasurer. 25 In spite of an overall increase in Populist Clubs, dissent over ideological differences arose within several clubs and reduced their respective numbers. For example, the Petaluma Courier of September 4, 1894, reported that the Populist Club of Cloverdale, considered by many as the stronghold of all the county's clubs with 200 members, was declining in membership. This decline occurred because the Democrats who had joined the club as a "new adVenture" were returning to their former party after the passage of the Tariff Bill and the beginning of a business revival. In addition, this report claimed that many club members who were former Republicans also intended to vote a straight Republican ticket whioh would further dilute the political power of the Cloverdale Club and consequently, the power of the Peoples' Party as well. 26 An editorial prediction by the Sonoma Democrat added more details to the picture of the pending election. It suggested that the Democrats should be assured of a majority in the senate due to their upset in 1892 and that the assembly would be a mixture of Democrats, Republicans and Populists although the PopUlists should increase the number of candidates elected over the eight seats they had won in the 1892 legislature. To those olose to the election it appeared that oounty party lines would be less strictly drawn and that personality and fitness for offioe would 25 Petaluma Courier, August 14, 1896. The cause of the split in Populist Clubs is indeterminate from the data available. 26 Petaluma Courier, September 4, 1894. 61 have a greater influence on voters than would party allegiance. 27 However, the reverse was true as fusion between the Peoples' Party and the Democrats failed to materialize and all county parties maintained strict partisan lines in 1894. The failure of Populists and Democrats to fuse for this election led to overwhelming Republican success. With the exception of Governor Budd, a Democrat, California Republicans elected six congressional representatives to one Democrat while the Populists elected one candidate to the state legislature on a straight ticket and two in fusion with the Republicans. In addition, for state offices Republicans elected seventeen candidates and the Democrats only five. Republican candidates in Sonoma County received a majority vote for eight of nine state offices selected for study. The Republican margin of victory for state candidates ran from a low of 6.ij percent to a high of 24.9 percent of the total votes cast with the average margin of victory at 12.9 percent. This Republican victory was repeated in the county elections where they received a majority vote in nine of the ten county offices. 28 However, the margin of victory was less than 10 percent in the county elections. Both state and county election results for the Peoples' Party were dismal -- they failed to elect a single candidate although they did show a tremendous increase in the number of votes cast in comparison with the 1892 election. In the vote for state offices, the Peoples' Party 27 Sonoma Democrat, July 4, 189ij; Sonoma Index-Tribune, September 5, 1894. 28 Petaluma Courier, September ij, 1894. Minor state offices are not included in Sonoma County figures. 62 TABLE 4 COUNTY ELECTION RESULTS: SONOMA COUNTY 1894 (* indicates successful candidate) OFFICE POPULISTS VOTE % DEMOCRATS VOTE ~ Asserrbly 16 A.R. Galloway 844 21.4 H.W. Ungewitter 1275 32.11 Asserrbly 17 J.W. Keegan 757 24.3 J. T. Cambell 1130 36.2 Sheriff J. Roberts 1090 14.6 L. Tombs 2811 37.7 County Clerk H. Ferguson 697 9.6 W.F. Wines 3019 41. 7 County Trees. A.L. Warner 836 11.6 L.G. Ellsworth 3083 ~2.8 Aud/Controller D. Gutermute 813 11.2 W.H. Poole 2786 38.4 Coroner W. Osborne 1046 14.4 B. T. Cockrill 2319 32.0 Surveyor V.W. Bagley 1060 15. 1 W. Synm,mds 2708 38.7 Dist. Attorney ------ *E. Seawell 3568 52.7 Assessor T.C. Cole 888 12.2 W. Logroore 2879 39.4 %Average Vote: 14.9 39.3 REPUBLICANS PROHIBITIONISTS Assembly 16 *W. Price 1745 44.3 C. Todd 73 1.9 Assembly 17 *W.S. Staley 1141 36.6 F.B. Gregory 93 2.9 Sheriff *S.I. Allen 3411 45.7 w. M. Di ckerson 152 2.0 County Clerk *S .B. Fulton 3387 46.8 J. Wier 129 1.9 County Treas. *E.F. Woodward 3171 43.9 H.C. McLenden 121 1.7 Aud/Controller *A.J. Atchinson 3509 48.5 W.M. Maddocks 140 1.9 Coroner T.G. Young 3649 50.4 J.W. Lowery 225 3.2 Surveyor *L.E. Rickseeker 3233 46.2 ------ Dist. Attorney *L. Green 3212 47.3 -_...... -_-,---"..,--- Assessor *M.V. Vanderhoof 3359 46.0 J.W. Harlan 172 2.4 %Average Vote: 45.2 2.1 ELECTION SUMMARY MARGlN OFFICE CANDIDATE -PARTY VICTORY % NUMBER ELECTED Assembly 16 W. Price R 470 11.8 R - 9 Assembly 17 W.S. Staley R 281 8.6 D - 1 Sheriff S.I. Allen R 600 8.0 County Clerk S.B. Fulton R 368 5.0 County Treas. E. Woodward R 88 1.2 Aud/Controller A.J. Atchinson R 723 10.0 Coroner T.J. Young R 132 1.8 Surveyor L.E. Rickseeker R 525 7.3 Dist. Attorney E. Seawell D 356 6.6 Assessor M.V. Vanderhoof R 480 6.7 SOURCE: Sonoma Democrat, November 10, 1894. 63 TABLE 5 STATE ELECTION RESULTS: SONOMA COUNTI 1894 (*Indicates Successful Candidate) OFFICE PEOPLES' PARTY VOTE % DEMOCRATS VOTE % Governor J.V. Webster 1091 14.6 J.H. Budd 2832 38.0 Lt. Governor A.J. Gregg 1085 15.7 W.J. Jeter 2262 32.7 Congress R.P. Grisby 868 12.0 *T.J. Geary 3084 42.9 State Senator G.S. Peck 1039 14.4 J.W. Oats 2703 37.5 Sec. State M.M. Glynn 1029 14.3 B.M. Maddock 2509 34.7 Controller J.S.Dore 1016 13.8 M. Meager 2127 28.9 Treasurer J .M. Barton 1184 16.2 J.C. Castro 2385 32.7 Attorney Gen. L. Luckel 1139 15.9 A.B. Paris 2536 35.5 Surveyor Gen. L.F. Bessett 1080 15.8 M.M. Angier 2424 35.5 % Average 14.7 35.3 REPUBLICANS PROHIBITIONISTS Governor *M.M. Estee 3316 44.4 H. French 230 3.0 Lt. Governor *S.G. Millard 3345 48.2 C.H. Dunn 236 3.4 Congress J.A. Barham 3071 42.7 Dr. J .R. Gregory 173 2.4 State Senator *J .C. Holloway 3331 46.2 G.E. Prunk 136 1.9 Sec. State *L. Brown 3455 47.8 M.X. Winchester 183 2.5 Controller *L.P. Colgan 4067 55.2 H.C. Needham 160 2.1 Treasurer *L. Racklifte 3493 47.9 W.H. Magoon 225 3.0 Attorney Gen. *W.F. Fitzgerald 3256 45.5 C.P. Durland 221 3.1 Surveyor Gen. *M. J. Wright 3132 45.8 C. Spurrier 198 2.9 %Average 47.0 2.6 ELECTION SUMMARY MARGIN OFFICE CANDIDATE PARTY VICTORY ~ NUMBER ELECTED Governor M.M. Estee R 484 6.4 R 8 Lt. Governor S.G. Millard R 1083 15.1 D - 1 Congress T.J. Geary D 13 .002 P - 0 State Senator J.G. Holloway R 628 8.7 Sec. State L. Brown R 946 12.2 Controller L.P. Colgan R 1940 24.9 Treasurer L. Racklifte R 1108 15.3 Attorney Gen. W.F. Fitzgerald R 720 10.0 Surveyor Gen. M.J. Wright R 1008 15.1 %Average Republican Majority: 12.9 SOURCE: Sonoma Democrat, November 10, 1894; California Blue Book, 1895. 64 received over 1,000 votes for each office except congressman. The Populists's numeric average vote for state candidates was 1,059 as compared to county candtdates which averaged 813 votes, a difference of 277 votes or 21.4 percent. From the inception of the Peoples' Party in 1892, fusion with the Democratic Party was a major issue both within the party and between the two parties. Although the Peoples' Party and the Democratic Party did not fuse in the 1894 election, and total fusion was unlikely, had fusion occurred the outcome of the election might have altered significantly. Had all Populists and Democrats voted the Fusion ticket, the results of a combined party vote would show that fusion could have placed candidates in seven of nine state offices. 29 At the county level a possible fusion ticket may have won almost total election victory with a majority vote for nine out of ten candidates.30 The failure to fuse hindered the cause of both the Democrats and Populists as the Peoples' Party drew away significant numbers of Democratic voters. This effect was in direct contrast to the 1892 Democratic victory in which election the Peoples f Party had attracted Republican voters to their party's cause. Despite the growth of local town populations, during the 1890's the majority of voters remained in the rural areas where the Peoples' Party found most of its support. The data show that rural precincts cast 62.7 percent of the total vote for selected candidates for county offices and 60.8 percent for selected candidates for state office.31 Rogin's 29 Sonoma Democrat, November 10, 1894. See Table 5, p.63. 30 Ibid. See Table 4, 62. 31 Ibid. See Tables 7 & 8. 65 TABLE 6 POSSIBLE FUSION VOTE FOR STATE CANDIDATES IN 1894 (* Successful Candidate) Office Fusion (Demo/Poe) Republican Prohibitionist Vote % Vote l Vote l Governor *3923 52.6 3316 44.4 230 3.0 Lt. Governor *3347 48.4 3345 48.2 236 3.4 Congressman *3952 54.9 3071 42.7 173 2.4 State Senator *3742 51.9 3331 46.7 136 1.9 Sec. of State *3538 L19.0 3455 47.8 183 2.5 Controller 3134 42.7 *4067 52.3 180 2. 1 Treasurer 3569 48.9 *3493 49.7 3.0 Attorney General *3675 51.4 3256 45.5 221 3. 1 Surgeon General *3504 51.3 3152 45.8 198 2.9 POSSIBLE FUSION VOTE FOR COUNTY CANDIDATES IN 1894 (* Successful Candidate) Office Fusion (Demo/Poe) Reeublican Prohibitionist Vote % Vote % Vote 1 Assembly 16 *2119 53.8 1745 44.3 73 1.9 Assembly 17 *1887 60.5 1141 36.6 93 2.9 Sheriff *3901 52.3 3411 45.7 152 1.9 County Clerk *3716 51.3 3387 46.8 129 1.9 County Treasurer *4019 54.4 3171 43.9 121 1.7 Audit/Controller *3599 49.6 3509 48.5 140 1.9 Coroner 3365 46.4 *3649 50.4 225 3.2 Surveyor *3768 53.8 3233 46.2 District Attorney *3568 52.7 3212 47.3 Assessor *3767 51.6 3359 46.0 172 2.4 66 study of the voting patterns of California Populism showed that the party's rural votes often reached as high as 70 percent of the total vote cast for Peoples' Party candidates.32 Sonoma County's rural Populist vote closely followed those findings with 66.7 percent of the total party vote for candidates of county offices and 62.6 percent for state offices. Additionally, from a possible fUsion ticket a majority vote would also have been generated from the rural sector. This data, therefore, confirm that in 1894 Sonoma Populism was still a rural movement, and they accord with Rogin's conclusions.33 While the Populists made some impressive gains in voter strength in the 1894 election, the Democrats experienced a massive setback at the polls. They blamed this decline on the Populist Party which they believed was largely comprised of former Democrats. This point was made succinctly in an editorial entitled ''Minority Victoryll printed in the Sonoma Democrat in November. The article pointed out that the Republicans had won without making any material gains in the total votes cast over the 1892 county, state and national elections. Consequently, the Republican victory was due to a minority united against a divided majority which highlights the importance of the Peoples' Party in this election. 34 32 Rogin, Shover, Political Change, 16-74. 33 See Tables 7 & 8. 34 Sonoma Democrat, November 17, 1894. The article concluded that the idea of Socialism within the party had been rejected by stating that Populists were not Socialists but made to appear so by "pestiferous leaders. II 67 TABLE 7 TOWN-RURAL VOTE: 1894 SONOMA COUNTI ELECTION SELECTED STATE CANDIDATES Combined Total Vote Candidates Vote Governor Lt. Governor Sec. State Controller Total Vote 7469 6928 7156 7370 Total Town 2787 2832 2756 2969 Total Rural 4682 4096 4400 4479 Percent Town 37.3 40.8 38.5 40.1 Percent Rural 62.7 59.2 61.5 59.9 Average Town Percent: 39.2 Average Rural Percent: 60.8 Populist Party Vote Total Vote 1091 1085 1029 1016 Total Town 456 374 353 397 Total Rural 634 711 676 619 Percent Town 41.8 34.5 34.3 39.0 Percent Rural 58.2 65.5 65.7 61.0 Average Town Percent: 37.4 Average Rural Percent: 62.6 Possible Fusion Vote Total Vote 3923 3347 3938 3143 Total Town 1599 1448 1355 1258 Total Rural 2324 1899 2583 1885 Percent Town 40.7 43.2 34.4 40.0 Percent Rural 59.3 56.8 65.6 60.0 Average Town Percent: 39.6 Average Rural Percent: 60.4 SOURCE: Sonoma Democrat, November 10 1 1894; Petaluma Courier, November 10, 1894; California Blue Book, Sacramento State Printing Office 1 1895. 68 TABLE 8 1DWN-RURAL VOTE: 1894 SONOMA COUNTY ELECTION SELECTED COUNTY CANDIDATES Combined Total Vote Candidate Vote Sheriff County Clerk Audit.-Rec. Assessor Total Vote 7494 7232 7238 7298 Total Town 2675 2661 2878 2635 Total Rural 4919 4571 4360 4663 Percent Town 36.6 36.7 39.7 36.1 Percent Ru ral 63.4 63.3 60.3 63.9 Average Town Percent: 37.2 Average Rural Percent: 62.7 Populist Party Vote Total Party 1090 679 813 888 Populist Town 253 237 304 283 Populist Rural 83'"( 442 509 605 Percent Town 23.2 34.9 37.3 37.8 Percent Rural 78.2 65.1 62.7 68.2 Average Town Percent: 33.3 Average Rural Percent: 66.7 Possible Fusion Vote Total Fusion 3901 3698 4322 3767 Fusion Town 1361 1447 1285 1351 Fusion Rural 2540 2251 3037 2386 Percent Town 34.8 39.1 29.7 35.8 Percent Rural 65.2 60.9 70.3 64.2 Average Town Percent: 34.8 Average Rural Percent: 65.2 SOURCE: Sonoma Democrat, November 10, 1894; Petaluma Courier, November 10, 1894; California Blue Book, Sacramento: State Printing Office, 1895 69 Additional factors such as voter apathy and misunderstanding about both the silver issue and fusion may have affected the election results in the county_ Confusion over both the issues and candidates seems probable. For example, the question of free silver at 16-1 was a complicated issue which would build in voter interest with the next election, but at this time voters may have been unclear about which party supported which monetary reform. Confusion also resulted from the changing Populist policy regarding fusion. Failure to fuse at the county level in 1892 while the state and national party had agreed to fuse, as well as the decision against fusion by the party in 189~, must have bewildered voters.35 Election returns were further split by the appearance of a fourth party on the ballot, the Prohibitionists. FUSion, which had occurred in 1892 between the Populists and Prohibitionists, did not take place in this election and each party ran a straight ticket. However, should Prohibitionist votes have been aligned again with Populist votes, they would not have affected the outcome for any Peoples' Party candidate; if the Prohibitionists had aligned with the Democrats, a Democratic majority could have occurred only for the offices of assemblyman in the Seventeenth District and county treasurer in several precincts. In the final analysis, the Prohibitionists ran a distant fourth and did not elect a single candidate. 35 Sonoma Democrat, November 24, 1894. Examples of voter inconsistencies included conspicuous omissions such as the following: From the total vote in Sonoma County of 7,743, 294 did not vote for governor, 815 for senator and 525 for secretary of state. Such gaps are prevalent throughout the election for state and county officials and can only be explained by voter disinterest with oandidates and policies. 70 Although in 1894 both the California and Sonoma County Peoples' Party more than doubled their popular vote over that of 1892, they were doomed if they continued a middle-of-the-road policy in 1896. The Peoples' Party was further hampered by refusing to change its policy to address the prevailing conditions. Sonoma County Populists, for example, believed that increased farm production would solve all money problems for the farmer, but this conviction proved groundless. Further, many voters considered Populism extreme and impractical because of its insistance upon government ownership of communication and transportation rather than upon government regulation. Finally, the party lacked the organization and discipline to succeed. The Peoples' Party in Sonoma County agreed in principle with the Democratic Party, but the Populists' refusal to fuse with the Democrats as well as their failure to reach an internal agreement on the silver question hindered their party's progress. The failure of both the Sonoma County and state Peoples' Party at the polls in 1894 clearly signaled needed change in party policy if the Populists were to be viable contenders in the presidential election of 1896. 71 CHAPTER VI THE ELECTION OF 1896 1896 became the pivotal year for the Peoples! Party and greatly affected the future importance of the Democratic Party nationally, in California and on the local level. Locally, the Peoples' Party of Sonoma County opened its 1896 campaign by entering, for the first time, a party ticket in the Santa Rosa municipal election. In early February a meeting of the Peoples' Party Central Committee took place in the W.C.T.U. Hall. In addition to adopting plans for an early campaign in Santa Rosa's municipal election, the party at this meeting emphasized the organization of political clubs to influence city and county politics. The object for involvement in the municipal election was to increase interest in the party in preparation for the national election in November. 1 Santa Rosa's Armory Hall was the scene of the next Populist meeting on February 18, 1896, to nominate the Populist ticket in the coming city elections. John Keegan was elected chairman and E.W. Otis secretary. The Committee On Resolutions proposed to endorse the national and state platforms and to include local issues as the major portion of the municipal platform. 2 1 Petaluma Courier, February 22, 1896. The Populist Partyts activity in Sonoma County's municipal elections was concentrated in Santa Rosa which was located in the center of the county and was the largest, most populous city. 2 Sonoma Democrat, February 18, 1896. 72 A review of the platforms proposed by the Republican, Democratic and Peoples' Party will provide some answers to the Populist failure in Santa Rosa's municipal election of 1896. It is most notable that all three parties agreed upon five issues: 1) rigid economy in local government, 2) municipal ownership of public utilities, 3) improvement in the sewer system, 4) improvement in streets and sidewalks and 5) free water for domestic purposes. However, the Populists, unlike the other parties, included national issues in their local platform and chose to list these issues first. By policy local PopUlists had previously adopted only platforms as outlined by the national party, and it appears they emphasized national issues over local ones by ballot placement.3 This emphasis may have hindered the party's success in this municipal election. Election data verify fUsion of several Populists with both Republican and Democratic candidates in Santa Rosa's Illmicipal election. J.W. Jesse, the Democratic candidate for mayor, won by sixty votes over a union ticket of Populist and Republican candidate E.F. Woodward. In the council race the Populist and Democratic candidates W.P. Bagley, a contractor, and J.M. Carter both won seats while the remaining seat went to W.P. Simpson on a straight Republican ticket. The additional elected city officials consisted of four Republicans, three Demoorats and no Populists. 4 3 See Appendix N, 129. 4 Sonoma Democrat, March 14, 1896. No information is available that explains why several Populist candidates ran for election in fusion with both major parties. 73 TABLE 9 ELECTION RESULTS: SANTA ROSA 1896 OFFICE POPULISTS VOTE % DEMOCRATS VOTE ! Mayor E.F. Woodward 608# 47.6 *J .W. Jesse 667 52.4 Councilmen *W.P. Bagley 614# 54.4 W. P. Bagley *J.M. Carter 6941/ 58.3 J .M. Carter P.H. Kroncke 173 11.7 M.J. Bower 596 42.6 City Clerk C.W. Otis 24 2.0 *C.L. Mobley 784 60.4 City Attorney ------ R. Cambell 447 34.5 City Treasurer J.W. Warboys 390 30.0 C.D. Dumbar 396 30.0 Street Com. A. F. Abrahams 181 13.9 *J. Mc Minn 538 41.4 City Marshall ------ H. Wilson 593 45.4 City Recorder R.F. Hildreth 211 16.5 *M.K. Mc Corkle 542 42.5 City Assessor ------ J.B. Davis 532 42.3 REBUBLICANS INDEPENDENTS Mayor E.F. Woodward Councilmen C.N. Collins 524 45.6 J.L. Jordan & J.C. Miller 497 41.7 J.E. Stevens 151 11.6 *W.B. Simpson 648 51.7 City Clerk T.C. Goodfellow 337 26.0 City Attorney *0.0. Weber 845 65.4 City Treasurer *J.G. Woodward 534 40.0 Street Com. J. Carlton 264 20.3 D.W. Cozard 316 24.3 City Marshall *W.H. Steadman 708 54.2 City Recorder J.H. Reed 521 40.8 City Assessor *R.L. Johnston 726 57.7 * Indicates Successful Candidate. 1/ Total Vote for Fusion Candidates. ELECTION SUMMARY MARGIN OFFICE CANDIDATE PARTY VICTORY % ELECTION SUMMARY Mayor J.W. Jesse D 59 8.8 Total elected: Councilmen W.P. Bagley D - P 80 12.9 R - 5 J.M. Carter D - P 197 28.3 D - 4 W.B. Simpson R 52 8.0 PIP - D - 2 City Clerk C.L. Mobley D 447 57.0 City Attorney 0.0. Weber R 398 47.1 %Average Vote: City Treasurer J . G. Woodward R 144 33.1 P 15.7 Street Com. J. Mc Minn D 222 41.2 Fusion 53.4 Marshall W.J. Steadman R 115 16.2 Recorder M.K. Mc Corkle D 24 4.4 Assessor R.L. Johnson R 194 26.7 SOURCE: Sonoma Deroocrat, April 4, 1896. 74 Votes for Republican candidates declined in Santa Rosa's 1896 election as compared with those of 1894 which shows that the Peoples' Party was the major factor that changed the shape of victory in the later election. In 1896 Republicans received fewer votes for all offices except city attorney than in the previous election, and because the Peoples' Party garnered a majority of those lost votes, the Republioan candidates for the two council seats, the city treasurer and the city reoorder lost that election. The election of four Demooratic candidates coupled with the election of two Fusion candidates gave the Democratic Party a majority of elected offices for the first time in the 1890's. Fusion between the Peoples' Party and the Democrats which led to the election of councilmen Bagley and Carter was a factor in Republican losses of 1896. Had the Populists and Democrats agreed to complete fusion of all candidates, as they did for the November presidential and county elections, the possible fusion candidates could have won eight of the eleven municipal offices. However, the offioe of mayor, as Democratic victory, was unaffected by fusion between the Peoples' and Republican Parties. On the national and state levels, President Cleveland's silver policy reoeived the blame for the economic problems oreated by the depression of 1893 which strengthened the pro-silver and anti-Cleveland sentiment in the Democratic party.5 The California Democratic Party developed a platform oalling for free and unlimited coinage of silver as a solution to the currency problem and labeled gold as un-Amerioan. 5 Cleveland's silver policy called for the repeal of the Silver Purchase Act of 1850 to halt the flow of gold to Europe and opposed inflated currenoy with "Free Silver" at 16-1. 75 Cleveland's policies were denounced, and William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska won the state and national Democratic nomination for president. 6 During its summer campaign the California Democratic Party reached the apex of its power statewide because of the popularity of the silver issue. The Democrats believed that a large state victory was assured if they could fuse with the Peoples' Party. The nomination of Bryan for president by the Democrats was designed to persuade the Populists to join them in fusion and a Democratic-Populist-Silver Party Conference met in August to work out a joint campaign.7 A committee at this conference agreed to fusion and combined presidential electors for Bryan on the basis of five Democrats and four Populists while the candidates for the seven state congressional districts would be four Democrats and three PopUlists. With fusion of the Democrats and Populists accomplished, the Democrats believed they could reverse the 1894 success of the the Republicans,S This Democratic strategy, aided by Bryan's popularity in California, gave the party added hope for success in the November election. However, as the campaign progressed, Bryan's popularity and early advantage in the state began to wane, especially in Northern California. California voters began to reject Bryan and the Democrats 6 Williams, Calfornia Politics, 233-235; Sonoma Democrat, June 17, 1896. At the June convention of California Democrats the party agreed to endorse Cleveland but renounced his financial policies. 7 Williams, California Politics, 165-239. 8 Cator Paper, July 9, 1896; San Francisco Examiner, June 22, 1896; Sonoma Democrat, August 29, 1896. No agreement could be reached on a mutual vice preSidential candidate. Thus, each party nominated its own. The Silver Party agreed to support the candidates chosen and the division of electors between the Republican and Democratic parties. 76 because of the party's one-issue campaign of silver and because the Democrats apparently lacked interest in the economic and agricultural problems facing the state. Likewise, the National Democratic Party or Goldbugs, former Cleveland supporters, aligned with the Republicans against Bryan.9 The California Republican convention of May 5, 1896 nominated William McKinley, a former congressman and governor of Ohio, for president and adopted a platform that not only advocated both free silver and bimetalism but also allowed no compromise on silver at a ratio of 16-1. By this maneuver California Republicans hoped to influence the national party toward advocacy of silver. 10 Nevertheless, the national convention that met in St. Louis nominated McKinley but decided to maintain the existing gold standard. This decision had drastic and immediate effects on party enthusiasm in California, and as the campaign progressed, the "unreserved" declaration for the existing gold standard created confusion and discord throughout the Republican Party. 11 Despite these conditions, however, most members remained loyal to the party. As the election approached, the California Republicans bolstered their support by a skillful, dual campaign strategy based upon diffusion and exploitation of the Democrats' and Populists' one-issue, free silver 9 Williams, "California Politics," 245; Royce Delmatier, The Rumble of California Politics, 1840-1970, (New York: Wiley Co., 1970) 117. 10 San Francisco Chronicle, May 7, 1986. Although a majority of the "Silver Republicans" refused to leave the party, several party journals such as the Santa Rosa Press transferred their allegiance to the Democratic Party. 11 Williams, California Politics, 239; San Francisco Examiner, July 22, October 6, 1896. 77 campaign and by altering their own party platform to meet the regional needs of the state party. The Republicans also enhanced MoKinley's stature by emphasizing the value of a protective tariff in addition to other issues they believed would lead to prosperity and social progress. In addition the party waged a campaign which attacked Bryan as a radical anarohist and social revolutionist. It also ooerced and bribed Republican workers through the Southern Paoific Railroad and other Republican business interests in order to secure votes. 12 The nomination of McKinley revived the issue of tariffs for safeguarding American industry and inoreasing revenue. In Northern California the Republicans stressed the need for tariffs to proteot the Wine, fruit and lumber industries. However, many Sonoma farmers were already disgruntled with the Wilson Tariff which had passed in 1894 and had extended the levies on wine and liquor. 13 Locally, many farmers united against the threat of increased tariffs while the farm community disputed government claims that tariffs raised the price of farm crops. Using the McKinley Bill as an example, these Sonoma farmers could show that when the duty on certain farm products had doubled, the selling prioe of their crops had actually droppped. 14 12 Williams, "California Politics, tI 2~2-246; San Francisco Chronicle, October 9, November 3, 1896; Walters, "California Populism," 294-357. 13 Sonoma Democrat, January 13, July 2, 26, 27, April 14, 1894. 14 Sonoma Democrat, January 13, February 10, June 20, 1894; San Francisco Chronicle, October 9, 1896. 78 The tariff, as a protection against foreign competition, had not been an important part of the Populist platform in Sonoma County. The party considered tariffs necessary only to produce revenue. In addition, the Populists objected to tariffs beoause they laid the burden of taxation on those least able to pay. 15 In spite of opposition, many Populists, headed by E.M. Wardell, the chairman of the Populist central committee, became convinced that free silver coinage was their best chance for success. Opposition to free silver came from the middle-of-the-road camp lead by J.V. Cator. Cator believed that silver must be used as an issue to strengthen the campaign, but he insisted that the party must maintain the complete Omaha platform as authorized by the national party in 1892.16 The relative sucoess of the state Peoples' Party without fUsion during 1894 clouded the Populist view and convinced many members that their party could achieve even greater success in 1896. Cator and others sought a straight ticket based on the principles of Populism by affirmation of long range party goals and by forgoing fusion with the Democrats. The party's state convention in May approved free coinage, reaffirmed the Omaha platform and opposed fusion. 17 However, the July Democratic state convention's endorsement of Bryan for president convinoed Cator as well as Stephen M. White and the silverites that the 15 Ibid. 16 Cator Papers, May 6, 1895. Populists who opposed the narrowing of the party's platform to one issue, Silver, called themselves llmiddle of-the-road. 1I They wanted to maintain the Omaha Platform. 17 San Francisoo Chroniole, May 12-14, 1896; Williams, California Politics, 241-244. 79 party was doomed if it failed to endorse Bryan and fusion. Fusion was completed at a state Democratic-Populist-Silver Convention in late August of 1896. 18 With the opening of the 1896 national election campaign, the cry of free silver on the national, state and local levels led to the establishment of Bryan Free Silver Clubs and Bimetallic Conventions throughout the state. In Santa Rosa as early as February 25, a joint meeting was held by Populists and Bimetallists at Ridgeway Hall to choose delegates to the city convention. 19 In addition to reporting on silver club meetings, the Petaluma Courier reported that Populist Club meetings were held locally on July 30 and August 6. The object of these clubs was to educate party members through discussion of the issues germane to Populism. At the August 6 meeting a committee was established to prepare topics of importance for presentation at the weekly meetings. 20 Inspired by the success of the Silver and Populist Clubs, the Sonoma County Peoples' Party began their 1896 presidential campaign on August 11 in Santa Rosa's Armory Hall. In his opening address George W. Monteith of San Rafael, the Populist nominee for congress, emphasized the main points of the local party platform. His talk centered on fusion, which he favored, and he decryed the Gold Republicans and Gold Democrats along with the evils of the Southern Pacific Railroad and C.P. 18 Cator Papers, July 18, 1896; San Francisco Chronicle, July 12, 1896. 19 Sonoma Demoorat, February 25, 1986. See page 75 for references, policies and procedures adopted this convention. 20 Petaluma Courier, July 30, 1896; August 6, 1896. 80 Huntington. Speaking in favor of Monteith and free silver, Thomas Johnson of Glen Ellen contended that those who favored gold favored the wealthy. The silver issue, he stated, IIpitted the masses versus the classes" and added that free silver was needed to halt the flow of wealth to the railroad and corporate interests. Monteith continued his campaigning in Petaluma where he called for money reforms. According to Monteith, there was a need for more money in circulation to reduce the amount of labor necessary to earn a dollar. 21 As the silver question began to assume a dominant position within the county's major political parties, a delegation of Populist candidates and party members, led by A.J. Warner and J.W. Keegan, attended the previously mentioned Bimetallic Convention in San Francisco on August 19. 22 Upon returning to Sonoma County this delegation assumed the lead in forming a Free Silver Club in Santa Rosa on August 26. Speeches by various delegates on the silver question, income tax reform and justice in the law defined the pOSition assumed by this club. Within this club Democrats and Populists assumed similar pOSitions with silver as the main, but not the only, position. Other Bryan Free Silver Clubs were formed throughout the county by a combination of Populist and Democratic 21 Sonoma Democrat, August 29, 1896; Petaluma Courier, August 22, 1896. Montieth, a noted attorney from MarIn County, earned the recognition of labor by defending the American Railway Union. The union had been charged with conspiracy against the government for taking part in the railway strike. Montieth secured the release of twenty of the three hundred charged. 22 Sonoma Democrat, August 15 t August 28, 1896; Petaluma Courier, August 22, 1896. J.W. Keegan, the leader of the Sonoma County Party at this convention, voted in favor of fusion. 81 Party members and paved the way for the eventual fusion at the county level between the two parties. 23 The state Peoples' Party's insistence upon foreclosure of railroad mortgages, however, indicated that the old policies of the Populists were still prevalent. California Populists adopted a policy calling for the foreclosure of railraod mortgages to end railroad monopoly and to collect railroad debts. During the final weeks of the Democratic-Populist campaign in California, the party focused exclusively on the silver issue. The aim was to convince state and county voters that free coinage would raise wages, increase farm income and cure the depression. However, by election time few differences appeared in the silver platform of the three major parties. The Republicans insisted on gold as legal tender with silver at 16-1 while the Democrats and Populists called for coinage of both gold and silver at 16-1. 24 Nevertheless, free silver appeared to be the number one issue with the county Peoples' Party, and by September it completely dominated the politics and campaign of Populists locally, statewide and nationally.25 23 Petaluma Courier, July 30, 1896. The committee consisted of J.M. Blakely, W. M. Norton, P. Cowen, A. M. Smith and A. T. Johnson; Sonoma Democrat, August 10, 1896; Sonoma Index-Tribune, August 10, 1896. The attendance at this club meeting totaled 559 members. It was predicted that membership would soon reach 1,000, Healdsbure Tribune, July 30, 1896; Sonoma Democrat, August 29, 1896. McKinley lubs were being established within the county by the Republicans to combat the Democratic-Populist Free Silver Clubs. These clubs called for a sound money policy with tariffs as the paramount issue. 24 Petaluma Courier, September 6, 1896. 25 Petaluma Courier, August 22, 1896; Sonoma Democrat, September 5, 1896. The Populist platform called for reform in money, credit, transportation and land. 82 A convention of the Sonoma County Peoples' Party met in Petaluma at Putnam's Hall on September 11, 1896, to elect delegates to the joint Populist-Democratic convention in Healdsburg which would make this community the scene of the most important convention in Sonoma County during 1896. On September 14 the Populists meeting at Foxe's Hall and the Democrats meeting at Truitt's Theatre agreed upon both the platform and the policy of fusion for the two local parties. In addition, it was decided that the division of presidential electors would follow that of the state party. However, the Populists refused to fuse unless they were allowed to nominate both assemblymen, a demand the Demoorats narrowly accepted by a vote of 88 to 80. 26 The Petaluma Courier of September 26, 1896, confirmed that at the Healdsburg convention Sonoma Demoorats and Populists had agreed upon local issues which gave birth to the county union ticket. The Sonoma Democrat claimed that this ticket was supported by judges, legislators and supervisors and that it received hearty approval from the people of the oounty as well. There was tremendous support for fusion by both PopUlists and Democrats and the belief that it would bring victory if the fusion ticket was fully backed by both parties. Furthermore, the Sonoma Democrat assured the union ticket that it could easily win the election for "they would have a majority in the county of five or six hundred voters and by voting a straight Fusion ticket would elect every candidate. nzr 26 Healdsbur~ Tribune, September 14, 1896; Sonoma Democrat, September 14, 189. Both papers report voting by township on acceptance of proposals. Sonoma Democrat, September 19, 1896; Petaluma Courier, September 15, 1896; Sonoma Democrat, September 19, 1896. These papers list committee members. zr Sonoma Democrat, September 26, 1896. 83 The experience of the 1892 election, which had produced a statewide Democratic victory through fusion with the Populists, impressed the need for fusion strongly upon both local parties. Consequently, the two parties virtually fused into one, and the decline of the Peoples I Party in Sonoma County began on all fronts. 28 During the campaign the one problem that continually plagued the Populist Party in California was the Catholic issue -- the exclusion of Catholics from the party. The American Protective Association (A.P.A.), based on the American Party active 1n earlier Sonoma elections, had created problems for both county Populists and Democrats in the 1894 election. California Democrats, realizing the anti-Catholic issue might become a problem, issued a resolve in their platform denouncing the methods and aims of the A.P.A. which it believed were based on religious proscription and exaction of a religious test for political office. However, this attempt to appease the Catholics in the state may have been diluted by a Democratic resolve condemning the use of public funds to support sectarian or denominational schools. 29 The secrecy of the organization makes it difficult to determine the extent of its influenoe on local elections, but the A.P.A. was known to have had a major following among rural Populists which made it difficult for the Sonoma County People's Party candidates to appeal to Catholic laborers. Hostility towards Catholics had mounted in the state 28 Sonoma Democrat, November 9, 1898. County election returns for 1898 show no Populist candidates. Petaluma Courier, November 21, 1900. Election returns show 73 votes for Populist electors and 53 votes for Populist congressman. The Social Democrats received 140 votes for electors and 103 votes for congressman. 29 Sonoma Democrat, June 17, 1896; Petaluma Courier, August 8, 1896. 84 during the depression of 1893, and by 1894 the A.P.A. contained as many as 12,000 members. Local Populists faced a dilemma since their major support was increasingly centered in the rural sector which had a growing number of Italian Catholic immigrants. It became imperative to appeal to these voters, and as early as 1894, some members of the Sonoma County People's Party had encouraged changing the party's anti-Catholic image in order to gain the Catholic vote.30 The attitude of the county Populists toward the A.P.A. becomes evident upon investigation into the activities of the Populist Clubs. C.W. Otis introduced a resolution denouncing the A.P.A. at the August 6 meeting of the Petaluma Club. During the meeting there was much heated discussion, and it appeared that the resolution would not be seconded. Finally, the motion was seconded by H.J. Johnson, but D. Gutermute introduced a compromise Which was adopted. This compromise stated that the Populist Clubs would neither endorse nor denounce the A.P.A. nor any other secret order.31 In addition to reporting on the refusal of several Populist Clubs to support the APA, the Sonoma Index-Tribune of October 27, 1894 also recorded the journey of J.W. Keegan, a nominee for assembly that year, to Sonoma Township where he openly patronzied a "Catholic Fair." Although Keegan was not elected in 1894, his attempt to obtain Catholic support 30 Williams, California Politics, 100-201; Sonoma Democrat, September 24, 1896; Walters, flCalifornia Populism," 294=397. John Higham, Strangers in the Land, 3-12, 68-105 refers to the importance of the nativist movement in Populism. U.S. Bureau of Census, Population Statistics 1900; Thompson, California Population. 31 Sonoma Democrat, June 17, 1896; Petaluma Courier, August 8, 1896. 85 TABLE 10 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS: SONOMA COUNTY 1896 OFFICE PEOPLES' PARTY VOTE % DEMOCRATS VOTE % Pres. Electors+ W.J. Bryan 335 4.5 W. J. Bryan 3,229 43.0 Congressman+ F.A. Cutler 3,272# 47.5 F.A. Cutler G.W. Monteith** 85 1.2 Assembly, 16th A.R. Galloway 1,598# 49.7 A.R. Galloway 17th *J .W. Keegan 1,722# 52.3 J. W. Keegan Judges J.C. Sims 3,15141 42.2 J.C. Sims A.B. Ware 3,155# 42.7 A.B. Ware Supervisors, First *F .B. Glynn 539# 53.7 F.B. Glynn Third R.H. Thompson 393# 45.8 R.H. Thompson Fifth W.P. Barnes 1,165# 47.7 W.P. Barnes REPUBLICANS VOTE L Pres. Electors+ *W. Mc Kinley 3,935 52.6 Congressman+ *J.A. Barham 3,614 52.5 Assembly, 16th *W.F. Price 1,617 50.3 17th W.S. Taley 1,565 47.7 Judges fA.G. Burnett 4,315 57.8 *S.K. Dougherty 4,238 57.3 Supervisors, First N.L. Bagley 463 46.3 Third *T.C. Putnam 464 54.2 Fifth *H.W. Austin 1,276 52.3 ELECTION SUMMARY VICTORY OFFICE CANDIDATE PARTY MARGIN % ELECTION SUMMARY Pres. Electors W. Mc Kinley R 437 5.0 Total Eleoted: Congressman J .A. Barnham R 342 5.0 R 7 Assembly, 16th W.F, Price R 87 2.7 PIP - D 2 17th J. W. Keegan D PIP 157 4.7 Judges A.G, Burnett R 1,164 15.6 %Average Vote: S.K. Dougherty R 1,087 14.7 Fusion 47.7 Supervisors, First F.B. Glynn D PIP 101 10.0 Third T.C, Putnam R 89 10.4 Fifth H.W. Austin R 141 5.9 * Indicates Successful Candidate ** Indicates Independent Candidate. # Total vote for Populist/Demooratio Fusion Ticket. + Minor party totalS of 115 votes cast for respective electors but not shown (Prohibitionist, Socialist, National Democratic). SOURCE: Sonoma Democrat, December 1,1896; California Blue Book, 1897. 86 TABLE 11 TOWN-RURAL VOTE: 1896 SONOMA COUNTY ELECTION SELECTED COUNTY CANDIDATES Combined Total Vote Candidate Vote Pres. Electors Congress Assembl~ 16 Assembl~ 17 '!DTAL 8093 6841 3215 3404 Total Town 2963 2733 1415 1269 Total Rural 5130 4108 1766 2134 Percent Town 36.6 39.9 45.3 37.2 Percent Rural 63.4 60.1 54.7 62.7 Average Town Percentage: 39.7 Average Rural Percentage: 60.3 Fusion Vote Total Fusion 4513 3203 1598 1770 Total Town 1577 1332 767 694 Total Rural 2936 1871 831 1076 Percent Town 34.4 41.5 47.9 39.2 Percent Rural 65.6 58.5 52.1 60.8 Average Town Percentage: 42.2 Average RUral Percentage: 57.8 SOURCE: Sonoma Democrat, November 7, 1896; Petaluma Courier, November 7, 1896; California Blue Book, Sacramento State Printing Office, 1897. 87 may have contributed to his victory in 1896 when he received 60.8 percent of the Fusion vote. From Keegan's total vote, 62.7 percent came from the rural precincts which contained a large block of Catholic voters.32 In the state campaign the Fusion ticket was hindered not only by a small but noticeable anti-Catholic and anti-semitic appearance but also by the Cleveland (Goldbug) Democrats and most especially by a lack of funds.33 Insufficient revenue created the greatest hardship on both the Fusion ticket and the Republican Party throughout the 1896 campaign. However, a last minute influx of money into the Republican Party fueled its campaign and enabled it to sway state voters away from the Fusion ticket and into its own camp, assuring victory on election day, November 3, 1896.34 The election of 1896, like that of 1894, was an overwhelming Republican success. In addition to the Republican majority for electors, Sonoma County Republicans held an edge over the Fusion candidates in six of the etght state offices. Republican Congressman J.S. Barham obtained 52.5 percent of the vote and won by a margin of 5.0 percent. The Republicans also received the largest number of votes for both superior court judges and two of the three supervisors. However, a close race occurred for both assembly seats. The Republican candidate, W.F. Price, 32 Williams, California Politics, 200-202; Sonoma Democrat, October 27, 1894, June 17, 1896. Although Keegan's attendance at a "Catholic Fair" is not conclusive evidence, the fact that a Peoples' Party candidate and protestant chose to attend and have it reported is significant. 33 Williams, California Politics, 252-254. 34 San Francisco Examiner, October 20-24, 1896; Royce Delmatier, The Rumble 1 121; Taggart, IIParty Realignment 1896," 446 j Rogin I Shover, Political Change, 16-24. 88 received a majority of only 87 votes, 50.3 percent, with a 2.7 percent margin in the Sixteenth District while J.W. Keegan won a Fusion majority in the Seventeenth District with a total of 157 votes and a 4.7 percent majority. TABLE 12 1896 FUSION VOTE BY OFFICE OFFICE FUSION VOTE % REPUBLICAN VOTE % Pres. Electors 3564 47.5 3935 52.5 Congressman 3272 46.5 3614 51.9 16 Assembly 159B 49.7 1617 50.3 17 Assembly 1722 52.3 1565 47.7 Judge 3151 42.2 4315 57.3 Judge 3155 42.7 4238 57.3 Supervisor 1st 539 53.7 463 46.3 2nd 393 45.8 464 54.2 3rd 1165 47.7 1276 52.3 In 1896 the Sonoma County Fusion ticket received 47.7 percent of the total vote. The failure of the Fusion ticket that year becomes evident if we compare that vote with the Democratic and Populist vote and with the possible fUsion vote of 1892 and 1894 respectively. In 1892 the local Democratic Party received 52.5 percent of the vote and the Peoples'-Prohibitionst Party about 6.8 percent. Consequently, in 1892 the success of the Democratic Party was not dependent on fusion but fusion would have been advantageous to the Populists. However, the Democratic vote declined in 1894 to 39.3 percent while the Populist vote increased to 14.9 percent. This increase in the Peoples' Party vote reduced the Democratic advantage of 1892 and led directly to a Republican victory. In 1894 both the Democratic and Peoples ' Party would have benefited from a Fusion ticket which would have received 54 percent of 89 the vote. Although fusion did occur in 1896, it failed to appeal to enough county voters to defeat the Republican Party. A review of the town-rural vote may help characterize the Fusion vote. The overall town-rural vote shows a decrease in the total rural vote from 61.9 percent in 1894 to 60.3 percent in 1896 due to an increase in urban voters. The Fusion ticket received 58.7 percent of its vote from the rural areas which is less than the 63 percent received by the People's Party in 1894. This decrease may be partially attributed to the growth of town populations in Sonoma County (Santa Rosa voted overwhelmingly Republican in 1892 and 1894) but mainly to increased rural support for the Republican Party in 1896. Although the county's political strength remained in the rural sector for the 1896 election and the majority of Fusion votes came from that sector, the vote was not sufficient to overcome the Republican majority.35 The failure of the Fusion ticket to defeat the Republicans may have also been influenced by voter failure to cast ballots for all candidates as well as by a low voter turnout. According to the Sonoma Democrat of November 16, 1896, the total Fusion vote in the county for 1896 was 3,111 votes for Bryan, but when compared to the total vote of 3,900 for the Democratic and Populist candidate for governor in 1894, there is a drop of over 800 votes. The Democrats claimed that the Populists failed to vote for both Fusion electors and the Fusion ticket. 35 Sonoma Democrat, November 7, 1896; Petaluma Courier, November 7, 1896. See Table 12. The town-rural vote of the Peoples' Party in 1896 cannot be determined because of fusion. A comparison of the possible fusion vote in 1894 with the actual fusion vote of 1896 shows a 5 percent decline of the rural vote for the latter election. Therefore, the Fusion ticket received less votes in the 1896 election than a possible Fusion ticket would have received in 1894. 90 In addition to not casting votes for electors, over one out of ten who went to the polls did not vote for congressman. From a registered vote of 8,833 and a recorded vote of 8,093, only 7,071 of the votes were cast for congressman. This pattern produced a shortfall of 1,022 or 12.6 percent of the recorded vote and 1,762 or 19.9 percent of the registered vote. Furthermore, from the recorded votes for assembly candidates, 2,239 votes or 27.5 percent were not cast for either candidate.36 Such inconsistencies were evident for all parties and a characteristic of Sonoma County elections in 1896 as well as in 1894. Although ballot irregularities can be seen as a possible cause, a more plausible cause for the failure of voter participation was dissatisfaction with the policies, platform and/or candidates of the Republican, Democratic and Peoples' Party.37 Although no evidence is available to explain why voters overlooked voting for certain candidates, voter turnout remained high in Sonoma County when compared to national voter turnout. Rogin found that national voter turnout for presidential elections from 1876 to 1898 was 78.5 percent with off-year elections slightly higher, and voter turnout in California between 1890 and 1900 averaged about 65 percent. Sonoma County's voter turnout in 1896, however, exceeded that level with 91.6 percent. Since a higher turnout 36 Sonoma Democrat, November 14, 1896. Inconsistencies in the voting totals were reported by the Sonoma Democrat and the Petaluma Courier of November 7, 1896 and the California Blue Book of 1897. For the prupose of this study, the statistics reported in the Sonoma Democrat were generally used because the Democrat provided more data and related better to additional information used herein. The Democrats claimed that the problem in the vote for congressman was due to the confUsion caused by the plaoement of names on the ballot. 37 Ibid. 91 historically favored the Democratic Party, the 13.1 percent higher turnout in Sonoma County should have increased Fusion Party support. However, no increase occurred. The election of 1896 devastated the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County. The local party's adoption of silver as its only plaftorm issue, its apparent failure to appeal to rural Catholics, and its indecision over fusion in 1894 and early in 1896 are the the salient factors that paved the road for the overwhelming victory of the Republican Party in 1896. Although the total number of local Republican candidates elected that year was exceptionally high, all nine electors and six of eight other candidates, the total vote was extremely close. Sonoma County cast 47.7 percent of its vote for Fusion candidates which compares closely with the vote nationwide of 48 percent. Sonoma County elections of 1898 show no evidence of a Peoples' Party on either the municipal or county level. This absence leads to the conclusion that the 1896 election had spelled the demise of the party in Sonoma County. In 1900, however, Sonoma County Populists reappeared minimally by polling 73 votes for preSidential electors and 53 votes for congressman. These were the last gasps of a dying party that Sonoma County had laid to rest four years earlier. In summary, the election results can be seen as a failure of fusion on both the state and local levels. Pointing out this failure, State Chairman Bosman of the Democratic Central Corrmittee claimed that the Democrats voted for the party while the PopUlists voted Republican. Chairman Manse of the Populist Central Committee claimed that a large 92 section of "silent Populists" returned to the Republicans, their party of origin.38 A large number of party members did desert the party. Many of those were party leaders hoping to protect their political positions by a change of allegiance. In 1898, J.A. Johnson, a San Francisco Populist, stated in the San Francisco Call that the "Brotherhood has been repeatedly used as a vehicle for ambitions of unprincipled politicians, who put themselves up for sale. II Furthermore, Johnson attributes the local party's decline to "the greedy ambition of a little coterie of professional office seekers," many of whom became Republicans, while others joined Eugene Debs and the Socialist movement.39 With the resounding defeat of the Democrats and the Populists in 1898, Walters states "that after the election of 1898 little more was heard from the Populist Party in California. II He found that most of the middle-of-the-road faction had become Republicans, Socialist-Laborites or had sought one of the newer leftist organizations. 40 1898 became a significant year for the Peoples' Party in California and nationwide since it marked the collapse of the agrarian movement as a third party. From the election of 1892 until the election 38 Williams, California Politics; 263-64; Taggart, "Election of 1898;" 357-368. 39 San Francisco Call, September 12, 1897; Walters, "California Populism," 358. 40 Rogin, California Populism, 189. Rogin found a high correlation between the Populist vote in 1892 and 1894 with the Socialist vote for president in 1904. It appears that the Socialist Party absorbed Popu lists who strongly favored economic reforms. Walters, npopulist Feud, IT 286; Taggart, "T.V. Cator, II 52. Cator, an important Populist leader, was controlled by the Southern Pacific Railroad and the Republican Party as early as 1897. 93 of 1898, the main concern of the Peoples' Party in California had been how much to cooperate jointly with other political forces. That question critically weakened the party and caused enough internal conflict to eventually split it into two factions. Furthermore, by the campaign of 1898 California's economy had made a radical recovery from depression, and the reform zeal of the agrarian community was dampened. These factors combined to preoipitate the Peoples' Party disappearance throughout the state. 94 CHAPTER VII Sonoma Populism in the Context of Historical Literature Until now the history of Populism in Sonoma County has been relatively unknown despite the faot that Sonoma had an aotive and vibrant Peoples' Party from 1892 to 1896. For undetermined reasons county historians have chosen to ignore the Populist contribution to Sonoma County's agrarian movement of the 1890's. Likewise, the major writers on California Populism, Walters, Taggart and Rogin, also may have failed to mention the Sonoma County Peoples' Party beoause it provided no active party leaders of state or national reputation, because it played only a minor role in state Populism and because it published no significant Populist literature. Nevertheless, within Sonoma County the Peoples! Party played an active role in seeking economic and political farm reforms and in deoiding the outcome of the county elections in the early 1890's. In order to develop the hypothesis that Sonoma County's Peoples' Party played an important role in the early elections of the 1890's, inferences about the party may be drawn from information available about the state and national party and about third parties in general. These inferences are possible because local Populists tended to follow closely the tenets of Populism as outlined by the national party. Therefore, a summary of the literature regarding state and national Populism and its 95 comparison with information about Sonoma County Populism will provide a means for analysis of the local views and beliefs, the party's effects on the local elections and the causes for the decline of the Sonoma Peoples I Party. The causes of agrarian unrest cited by "progressive historians" such as Hicks, Buck and others include the conspiracy theory, economic exploitation and the railroad monopoly. Sonoma Populists believed, in fact, that these precise factors worked against the farmers f welfare and that their cause was appropriate and justifiable. 1 Local Populists did not see overproduction as a cause of the farmers' troubles, rather, they blamed the railroad monopoly, the high profits of eastern money lenders and the need for currency reforms. The belief in the "conspiracy theoryll advanced by many writers is hinted at in speeches and discussions by Sonoma County Populists but never directly asserted. 2 The conviction that their economic problems could be solved by government intervention becomes evident in the platforms and policies of the local party which, like the state and national party, called for government control of the means of transportation and communication. Despite this Populist socialistic tendency, there appears to be no sign of proto-fascism which called for autocratic control of the means of production, as stated by Hofstadter and Ferkiss. Instead, Sonoma County Populism seemed to fit the tenets advanced by Pollack, Rogin and Hackney, 1 Sonoma Democrat, October 13, 1894, September 22, 1894. 2 Sonoma Democrat, April 14, 1894, July 21, 1894; Petaluma Courier, August 22, 1896. Monteith stated lithe people are on one side and the roonoplies on the other." He also stated that tithe m::mopolies subscribe to a $10 million corruption fund." Cator proclaimed in Santa Rose that "the people have been enslaved by the rroney powers. tI 96 that the party wanted to change society for the betterment of its constituents. Third parties are often characterized by a religious and anti foreign character which serves to increase political conflict. Higham suggested that anti-foreign sentiment rampant in the 1890's was given a boost by the depressed economic conditions of the period.3 However, the nativist dogma associated with America and Populism during the 1890's is difficult to characterize in regard to Sonoma County. According to the research by Heintz, the Chinese problem had been nearly resolved by 1890 while Speth's data show that the total Chinese population of Sonoma County had been reduced by almost 50 percent between 1890 and 1900. 4 In 1896 the Chinese population was only 3.5 percent of the total poulation and dropped to an insignificant 1.5 percent by 1900. Consequently, foreign immigrants who consisted of 26 percent of the total population in 1890 declined to 21 percent by 1900 despite a large influx of German, Irish and Italian immigrants. In addition to declining foreign population, Sonoma County's sound economic conditions and the need for Italian immigrants to replace Chinese labor in the viticulture industry may have greatly reduced or at least controlled the anti-foreign sentiment previously evident in Sonoma County. Concurrent with the increased need and probable acceptance of immigrants with viticultural skills, overtures were made to county Catholics through selected Populist policies and by some of the county 's 3 Higham, Stranger in the Land, 3-12, 68-105. 4 Heintz, "Chinese Labor in California Viticulture," 84-98; Speth, "Agricultural Labor Sonoma County, It 7-21. 97 Peoples' Party candidates. The A.P.A., although not completely dismissed from the party, had neither been accepted. Finally, investigation into county Populist platforms, policies and rhetoric failed to uncover any evidence of extreme natiVist, anti-foreign or anti-semitic sentiments as may have existed at the state and national levels. Sonoma County Populism displayed many tendencies that are characteristic of third party failure as discussed in Rosenstone, Behr and Lazarus. 5 First, the respective reforms and innovations espoused by the national, state and local People's Party were quickly adopted by the county Republican and Democratic parties which undermined support for local Populist reforms. Second, the failure to achieve any lasting success by the national and state parties hindered the success of the local Peoples' Party while the local party's failure left its supporters without benefits and patronage for their support. Similar to the state and national experience, the county party lost many members to their original party while other local members became inactive or may have joined one of the rising Socialist organizations. Third, Walters stated that the California farmer did not look to his own ranks for leadership but to professional third party veterans while Hofstadter observed that the Peoples' Party was a movement of farmers but not led by farmers. A study conducted by Gene Clayton entitled "Kansas Populism, Ideas and Men" calCUlated that 59 percent of the Populist leadership had been involved in previous unsuccessful third 5 Rosenstone, Behr, Lazarus, Third Parties, 1-2, 67-74. 98 party movements. 6 Therefore, problems occurred within the party as these leaders were generally seeking to advance personal aims rather than the tenets of Populism. These characteristics definitely describe the California Populist leadership of Cator, Haskell and others, but until the election of 1896, most early Sonoma County Populist leaders had been farmers with little political acumen. However, county Populist leadership began to change in 189~ because businessmen and professionals as well as former Democrats and Republicans joined the local party hoping to establish or to fUrther their political careers rather than to advance the aims of Populism. Nevertheless, the Sonoma County Peoples' Party, similar to the state and national party, failed to attract prominent leaders, and this lack of strong, durable leadership was a major cause of the overall failure of the Sonoma County Peoples' Party. The American political scene has been dominated by the two party system, and under normal conditions both parties maintain relatively stable loyalty at the grassroots level by continuing the advancement of party ideology and platforms. However, according to V.C. Key, "critical periods" occur which upset party normalcy and give rise to a third party.7 Michael Rogin characterized the 1890's as a "critical period" in California political history, and the Populist Party assumed an important 6 Walters, "California Populism," 357; Hofstadter, tiThe Folklore of Populism," 7~. Gene Clayton, "Kansas Populism, Ideas and Men, It (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1969). Prominent Peoples' Party candidates who previously ran as other third party candidates include Prohibitionist J.W. Bagley in 1890 and Jonathan Roberts and Allan Galloway in 1892. 7 V.O. Key, Jr., !lA Theory of Critical Elections, If Journal of Politics, February 17, 1955, 3-18. 99 third party role by reorienting both the issues and the constituencies of the major political parties. 8 It appears that third parties in the Nineteenth Century developed platforms with a wide range of issues to broaden their appeal. The Sonoma Peoples' Party began with this type of platform, but the silver question and fusion led to a narrowing of its focus and eventually to its defeat. As a third party the Populists entered the Sonoma County elections of 1892, 1894 and 1896 and contributed to the defeat of the Republicans in 1892, to the defeat of the Democrats in 1894, and with Democratic assistance through fusion, to a near victory in the election of 1896 by capturing 47.7 percent of the county vote. However, the 1896 election marked the end of this "critical period" with the defeat of the Democratic-Populist ticket nationally, statewide and locally by the Republican Party. Further study shows that the decade of 1890-1900 was not a major period of third party strength. The absence of third party voting power reduced the overall ability of the Populists to garner sufficient votes to overcome the existing parties. Statistics by Rosenstone, Behr and Lazarus estimate that third parties received only 10 percent of the recorded vote in 1890, 9.3 percent in 1892, 11.2 percent in 1894 and only 3 percent in 1896.9 These percentages were far from the 30 percent received by third parties in 1850 or the 35 percent received in 1912. In Sonoma County third parties cast only 6.8 percent of the vote in 1892, 15.5 percent in 1894 and about 5.9 percent in 1896 which was slightly 8 Rogin, "The System of 1896," 9-15. 9 Rosenstone, Behr and Lazarus, Third Parties, 1-5, 67-74. 100 higher than the vote cast nationally. The Sonoma vote, although not as high as other California counties, was probably higher than the national average for third parties because of the agricultural nature of the local economy. Research by Rogin and Shover offer several hypotheses regarding California Populism that may give some additional insight into the Sonoma Peoples' Party failure to achieve political success. 10 According to these authors California Populism displayed certain clear tendencies. First, it did not acquire the political power shown by Great Plains and southern Populism. This lack is evident in the 1892 election when California Populists garnered only 9.4 percent of the state vote for the presidential candidate and received only 18 percent for governor in 1894.11 In Sonoma County Populists were able to generate only 4.3 percent for president in 1892 and 14.6 percent for governor in 1894. Thus, Sonoma Populism had less support than state Populism. These authors concluded that the poor showing by California Populism, which applies equally to Sonoma County in 1892 and 1894, can be attributed to the fact that California as well as Sonoma County consisted of older settlements with better established political organizations than those of the Great Plains states of the Trans-Mississippi West. In Sonoma County 10 Rogin, Shover, Political Change, 119-196. 11 Ibid, 179-196; California Secretary of State, Statement of the Vote at the General Election Held November 8, 1892, Miscellaneous Publication No. 546, (Sacramento, 1892), 3-7. The states of the Trans Mississippi West had been settled only recently and lacked the growing metropolitan areas of California. Fusion in 1896 makes it difficult to determine the extent of Populist vote. 101 the Peoples' Party found it difficult to overcome the long established Republican and Democratic Parties. A second tendency cited by Rogin and Shover is that California Populism tended to flourish in poorer rather than wealthy counties. If this hypothesis is accurate, then the support Populism received in Sonoma County should have been weaker than the support it received in less prosperous counties, and this was indeed the case. 12 A third tendency was that Populist strength was concentrated in counties with expanding populations, and the greater the increase, the greater the number of voters who voted the Populist ticket. 13 Sonoma's rate of population growth during the Populist period had declined, however. County statistics show that although the population was increasing, it was not growing at the rate of previous nor succeeding decades nor at the rate of Southern California counties. Sonoma's population, which totaled 25,926 in 1880 and 32,721 in 1890, continued to expand reaching a total of 38,420 by 1900. The population growth between 1890 and 1900 totaled 5,759, an increase of about 17 percent. Walter Nugent, in his research on demographic conditions of the United States, finds that the average rate of population growth in the U.S. during this period was 26 percent while California increased at the rate of 31.9 percent. 14 Therefore, in relation to national and statewide population 12 Wealthy counties were defined by Rogin and Walters as those with high income and economic production. 13 This premise is based on Southern California counties which had a large influx of Republican immigrants from the midwest who voted Populist in the 1890's. 14 Nugent, Walter, Structure of American Social Histor , (Bloomington: University Press, 19 1 , 105-110. 102 and in comparison to the county in previous and succeeding decades, Sonoma County's rate of population increase was slower during the Populist period. If Rogin's assumption can be applied to Sonoma County, then this slowing of the population growth rate would have led to a decline in support for the local Peoples' Party. Rogin and Shover's fourth supposition is that California Populism appealed to the native stock areas while it lacked appeal to foreign born farmers. According to Speth and Thompson Sonoma County had a large percentage of native born, white American inhabitants who were either indigenous or who had migrated to Sonoma from other American communities. The data which indicate an increase in native born, white American residents by 5 percent between 1890-1900 also shows a decrease of 3.4 percent in foreign population. Therefore, due to the nativist tendency of Populism, it can be assumed that support for Sonoma Populism should have increased in the county during this period. 15 Finally, Rogin and Shover agree with Walters who believed that California Populism was not a product of poverty but was instead caused by "the restlessness associated with wealth and its exploitation. 1I16 Neither was Populism in Sonoma County a product of poverty since the county remained relatively prosperous. Rather it was based upon the farmer's belief that he was the victim of exploitation by the corporate structure, of the railroad monopoly and of generalized monetary constrictions. 15 Rogin, Shover, Political Changes, 179-196; Speth, "History Agriculture," 7-21; Thompson, Calfiornia Population,lI 1-88. 16 Walters, "California Populism," 396. The wealthy were understood as those who controlled the means of production, i.e. railroads, big business, financial institutions. 103 Walters also suggested that California Populism on both the state and local levels emphasized issues concerning the nation and society as a whole and that because of this concern for national issues Populists were slow in seeking local offices and in initiating local reform. 17 To some extent Sonoma County Populism fits this hypothesis since there were no municipal parties formed for either the 1892 or 1894 elections, and the party platforms during those elections contained only national and state issues. However, by the election of 1896 Sonoma County Populists had established a municipal party in Santa Rosa and had adopted local issues into their platform but even then only as an extension of those proposed by the national party. This failure to emphasize local issues served to further the party's decline. In summary, the comparison of Sonoma County Populism with state and national Populism found in the literature effectively highlighted the local party's differences from and similarities with the party at large. This comparison shed some light on the darkness which surrounds the establishment of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County and ~Jrthered the understanding of its rapid rise and swift decline. 17 Ibid, 396. 104 CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSION A local Peoples' Party was established in 1892 by county Populists as a vehicle for enacting political reforms they believed necessary to improve their agricultural community. However, clearly defining the party's purpose and ideology is problematic because insufficient documented evidence and the brevity of the Populist period limit analysis of the episode. The county party appeared in 1892 and disappeared after the election of 1896 while the municipal party in Santa Rosa began and ended in 1896. 1 Nevertheless, in this four year period, election results show that the county's Peoples' Party did play an important role in the elections of 1892, 1894 and 1896. The growth of Populism in the 1890 IS was due to the failure of the existing political and social system to effectively address adverse enVironmental, demographic and economic conditions. However, local conditions in Sonoma County differed markedly from the characteristic problems of most other communities and make caution necessary in comparing and analyzing the rise of the People's Party in the county with that of other areas. For example, while an economic depression affected most areas of the state and nation, Sonoma County farmers achieved reasonable prosperity because of increased agricultural diversity made 1 The only documented municipal Peoples! Party in Sonoma County. 105 possible by the rapid rise to prominence of viticulture and other di versified farm products, by the growing number of small farms, by independent, locally owned modes of transportation and by improved techniques which allowed county farmers to increase both their productivity per acre and their overall production. When no longer dependent on wheat and a one crop farm economy, Sonoma County did not have the drastic economic setbacks that hindered many other areas of the state. 2 Although several counties in Northern California had also diversified their farm economies by the 1890's, unfavorable weather conditions and local dependence upon the major railroads both impeded their production and marketing which, in turn, increased the need for local farm reform. Therefore, in relation to the national and state agricultural economy, Sonoma County achieved a stable and prosperous economy which diluted the urgency for many Populist reforms. Sound business practices of the local financial community was another factor which diluted the urgency of farm reform felt by others throughout the nation. At the time of a depressed national economy, Sonoma County kept confidence in and support of its financial institutions because they had maintained sound and conservative practices. As a result the adverse effects of the national depression were tempered locally. The type of immigrant who settled in Sonoma County also became important to the continued prosperity of the region. Although the rate of increase of immigration into Sonoma County during this period did not 2 The decline in the importance of wheat, once the staple crop of Sonoma County and the commercial wheat industry, led to a diversified agricultural economy. 106 equal the rates of national and state immigration nor did it total that of the period after 1900 in Sonoma, the numbers were substantial. Italian immigrants, with previous experience in viticulture, made up a large number of new farmers during this period. Italians not only made successfUl farmers but they also provided experienced labor to replace the Chinese in the labor intensive viticulture industry. The foreign population increasing nationally during the 1890s' coupled with a depressed economy nationwide evoked nativist and anti Catholic sentiment throughout the country. The national Peoples' Party seemed to reflect these sentiments so that despite overtures to Catholic voters made by Sonoma County's Populist Clubs and indivdual party candidates, Populism's anti-foreign and anti-Catholic profile may have hindered the success of the local Peoples' Party by alienating the large block of immigrant Catholic voters in the rural sector. Support for the party came largely from the rural areas since both the national and local Peoples' Party had failed to win the vote of urban labor. Although the increase in rural population far outnumbered the increase in town population, nevertheless the number of Peoples I Party supporters was not sufficient to overcome the long established political parties. As compared to statewide conditions, atypical environmental factors also may have affected the support that the local party received. Weather conditions in the early 1890's had disastrous effects on some farmers within the state. However, during this period storms and cold weather did not affect Sonoma County to the same extent as other areas nor did they create the hardships faced by farmers elsewhere throughout 107 the state. Consequently, the favorable environmental conditions reduced the drastic need for government aid to Sonoma County farmers that many others required and reduced the demand for farm reform as proposed by the Populists. 3 Prior to 1896 the railroad monopoly and its high rates constituted a primary concern of the national and state Populists, and most California farmers were dependent on transportation controlled by the major railroads. However, this issue had little impact on Sonoma County because of its four excellent modes of independent, local transportation including railways and shipping with the result that local conditions once again lessened the appeal of Populist reforms. Although Sonoma County Populists strongly supported railroad reforms, their main demand was currency reform. Sonoma County Populists wanted to increase the supply of money available by increasing the supply of silver to gold at 16-1 and by increasing the supply of paper money which would create inflated conditions. However, by abondoning all previous party platforms in favor of currency reform as the only issue on the platform of 1896, the local party, along with the national party's Fusion Ticket, plunged headlong into defeat whioh preCipitated an end of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County. An additional reason for the failure of the Peoples' Party was the type and instability of its leadership. They were generally third party politicians who often changed their party allegience to advance their publio careers. In California Cator and other party leaders not only 3 For example, the demand for a SUb-treasury system to be established by the federal government was not strongly supported by Sonoma County PopUlists. 108 changed political parties but also changed membership in farm organizations to further their political careers while locally Keegan, Warner and others moved back and forth between parties. 4 Not only did the leadership change frequently, but between the years 1892 to 1896, so also did the economic profile of the leadership (candidates) within Sonoma County's Peoples' Party alter drastically. These changes become apparent in comparing the occupations of party leaders in 1892 with those of the leaders in 1896. This data confirm a change from a majority of farmers to a majority of businessmen and professionals. 5 Thus, like the state and national party, the Sonoma County farmer may have lost control of his party. On the municipal level the party suffered from its lack of participation in local elections and its ommission of local concerns in the party platform. The Peoples' Party failure to enter the Santa Rosa and other municipal elections in 1892 and 1894 may have been due to the national Peoples' Party policy which emphasized only national party issues and concentrated exclusively on state and presidential elections. However, in 1896 the Peoples' Party decided to run a complete Peoples' Party ticket in the Santa Rosa municpal election. In spite of fusion with several Democrats, the party was able to elect only two candidates; it was able, however, to reduce the Republican vote enough to allow the election of four Democratic candidates. 6 4 See Chapter III, 30, 33. 5 See Appendix W, 137. 6 Had complete fusion occurred between the two parties the combined ticket could have elected eight of eleven candidates. 109 In many aspects, the characteristics that gave rise to national and statewide Populism did not fit the profile of Sonoma County Populism. The economic, demographic and environmental conditions differed from other areas of the nation and ultimately altered the needs and reform demands of county farmers. Nevertheless, the number of county residents who voted the Populist ticket increased from 297 for presidential electors in 1892 to 1,091 for governor in 1894, an increase of about 70 percent. Populist candidates for state office in 1894 averaged almost 1,000 votes per candidate while candidates for county office averaged almost 900 votes. However, this increase was not enough to overcome the major political parties which were long established and already stable within the county. The party was constantly plagued by the question of fUsion, and its changing policy on that issue greatly affected the results of each election. Although the national and state party achieved some suoess through fUsion, in 1892 the Sonoma County Peoples' Party united with the Prohibitionists for most county offices but failed to elect a single candidate.7 In 1894 the local Peoples' Party refused a second time to fuse with the Democrats. Despite an inorease of up to 70 percent in the the number of votes they received, again the Populists failed to elect a single candidate. Although the Peoples' Party experienced tremendous growth in 1894, it did not attract the large number of BepublicanvOOel'1$.~ that it had in 1892. 7 The importance of the role played by the Peoples' Party in the 1892 election is diffioult to determine. The inability to locate complete voting totals for candidates and the fusion between .the<·peoples' Party and the Prohibitionists make analysis problematic. 110 The effect of the Peoples' Party on the 1894 election is evident through the Republican victory which was achieved without appreciably increasing Republican vote totals over 1892 despite an increase in the total county voters. The tremendous increase in Populist votes that year must have been garnered at the expense of the Democratic party. With their principle opposition weakened, the Republicans won a majority vote in the county's nine state offices and in nine out of ten county offices. The election of 1894 appears to have been a victory of a minority party against a divided majority because of the Populists' refusal to fuse with the Democrats. However, had the Populists chosen to fuse with the Democrats, the results might have been completely reversed. In spite of fusion with the Democrats in the presidential election of 1896, that year was a disaster for Sonoma County's Peoples' Party and for the Fusion ticket which received a majority vote for only two of ita eight candidates. Although the party continued to operate nationally and in some counties within the state, this election marked an end of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County. 8 No evidence of the party on either the municipal or county levels has been found in Sonoma County elections of 1898. Its absence is conspicuous: Sonoma County publications make no mention of the Peoples' Party during 1897; there is no campaign activity during the period leading to the election; Peoples' Party candidates are abseut from ooun~~ ,) ~};"< '>;:',':i;;; ballots and election results. Furthermore, the records published by the county registrar of voters show conclusively that no Populist can. did~tes 8 Due to fusion between the Peoples f Party and the DelD;>crats 1896, the actual Populist vote is difficult to ascertain. 111 entered the Santa Rosa municipal or Sonoma County elections of 1898. The total absence of any recorded activity by the party leads to the conclusion that the election of 1896 spelled the demise of the Peoples' Party in Sonoma County.9 Establishing the importance of Sonoma County Populism would be eased by additional research into the election of 1892. If complete election totals for all candidates could be found, and if the Peoples' Party vote in 1892 could be separated from the Prohibitionist vote, then better comparisons could be made. In addition, the effects of Populist votes on the election of 1896 could be better understood if a complete separation of DenDcratic and Peoples' Party votes were possible. The ambiguity that remains around the motivation of Democratic and Republican Party members who voted the Peoples' Party ticket might be clarified by in-depth study of these parties while additional study of the urban-rural characteristics would increase the understanding of the location of voter support in each party. Finally, a complete study of the politioal, economic and social history of Sonoma County would fill a conspicuous gap in local recorded history and further the understanding of this period. Although population growth, ethnic factors, a prosperous economy and favorable weather conditions all combined to decrease the support fllr the Sonoma County's Peoples ' Party, the two primary reasOflsfor 1tSi failure were the refusal to fuse with the DeIOOcrats in189~ and 1"B9~~;5al1ld 9 Williams, California Politics, 263-65. In 1897 Debsbeg~l!l,;ttot+: organize local chapters of the "SOcial DeIOOcracy of America" whioh evolved into the Socialist Party. Aocording to historiansof,!G!all;t¢\brnia Populism those formerly active in the party either returned to one of the older parties or joined the newly emerging socialist organ1.Z'at~nS'>headed by Eugene Debs. 112 the weak appeal its policy and candidates held for local voters. As an example, voting records show that in 1894 the vote cast for state candidates exceeded the vote for county candidates by an average of 178 votes. In 1896 the one issue campaign lost additional voter support by failure to appeal to a broad electorate. Had the Populists been interested in irmnediate adoption of their reform demands, fusion with the Democrats in 1894 would have made this possible. However, Populist leaders wanted to develop the party into an independent political power and moved the party away from fusion when victory would have been otherwise assured. In addition, the Peoples' Party's insistence on national issues and its early lack of involvement at the municipal level greatly affected the party's appeal at the grassroots level. Although the Peoples Party did not directly elect a decisive number of legislative representatives on the 100a1, state and national levels, they did force the major parties to adopt and pass legislation which they favored, and they indirectly determined the outcome of the elections in which they participated by weakening the power of the Republican Party in 1892 and the Democratic Party in 1894. Despite local voter awareness of the farm problems being addressed by the Populists, it proved impossible for the county party to overcome the inherent political weakness present in all third party politics and to overcome the innate deficiencies of the state and national Peoples' Party. In conclusion, it is ironic that during the 1890's the Popul~st Party nationally and in California urged a potpourri of oontemporary reforms that would eventually be assimilated by the two major parties, 113 Statewide and national legislation proposed by the Populists in the 1890 1 s and passed in subsequent periods demonstrates that many economic and political changes which we now take for granted began as demands for reform with earlier agricultural societies. As a result of the formation of the Peoples' Party which attempted to effect those reforms through political action, they eventually became institutionalized. Because the party was unable to capitalize on its reform ideas and to convince the voters of the need for its reforms, however, the Peoples' Party failed. The Peoples' Party played only a minor role in California and the nation's history, but the subsequent addition of Populist proposals and reforms into legislation has played an important role and is well documented. The fact that the Peoples' Party did not survive as a political entity seems unimportant as long as the ideals for which the party stood were eventually instituted into derr.ocratio governanoe. Although the party did not endure, the contribution of the Populists has become part of our political heritage through the absorption of its platform by the major parties and that heritage remains one of significance and enduring value. 11~ APPENDICES APPENDIX A 115 UNITED STATES POPULATION 1880-1910 Year Population* Rural %Rural Urban %Urban 1880 50,156 36,112 72 14,043 28 1890 62,948 40,916 65 22,031 35 1900 75,995 45,597 60 30,398 40 1910 91,972 49,664 54 42,307 46 *millions SOURCE: Historical Statistics 1975, Series 21-219, A2, A203 UNITED STATES RURAL AND URBAN POPULATION GROWTH 1880-1910 Year %Total %Rural %Urban Increase Increase Increase 1880-1890 25.0 13.2 56.11 1890-1900 20.7 9.9 33.9 1900-1910 21.0 8.9 39.1 SOURCE: Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, Part 1, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Washington D.C., 1975 Series Column A, Series A 69, 195 D, K1, K4, K6, K7, K392 , 152-156; Twelfth Census of United States 1900, Population Series A, 196-209. APPENDIX B 116 CALIFORNIA POPULATION 1880-1910 Year Total Population Rural %Rural Urban %Urban 1880 864,694 494,083 57.3 370,611 42.7 1890 1,213,398 623,934 51.4 589,464 48.6 1900 1,485,053 708,233 47.9 776,820 52.1 1910 2,437,522 969, 103 38.8 1,468,419 60.2 CALIFORNIA URBAN AND RURAL POPULATION GROWTH 1880-1910 Year % Total % Rural % Urban Increase Increase Increase 1880-1890 40.3 26.2 59.5 1890-1900 19.9 13.5 31.7 1900-1910 64.1 36.8 89.0 SOURCE: ______""'!1111111_ APPENDIX C 117 POPULATION SONOMA COUNTY 1880 - 1900 Year AllDunt Decade %Increase 1880 25,926 1870 - 1880 30.8 1890 32,721 1880 - 1890 26.2 1900 38,480 1890 - 1900 17 .6 URBAN-RURAL POPULATION INCREASES 1880 - 1890 Town 1880 1890 GAIN Population CLOVERDALE 424 762 332 77 HEALDSBURG 1432 1482 352 31 PETALUMA 3320 3692 366 44 SANTA ROSA 3340 5244 1904 57 SONOMA 757 52.2 % Average Gain Townships BODEGA 1385 1558 173 12 CLOVERDALE 1265 155l.! 282 22 KNIGHT VLY. 418 430 12 .02 SALT POINT 875 952 77 .08 WASHINGTON 543 641 98 18 ANALY 1850 2709 855 l.!6 MENDOCINO 2874 3469 255 40 REDWOOD 913 1373 460 50 23.5 '1. Average Gain SOURCE: Sonoma Deroocrat, January 7, 1891; Warren Thompson, Growth and Change in California Populations, Los Angeles: The Haynes Foundation 1 1955, 1-88. APPENDIX D 118 SONOMA COUNTY SELECTED IMMIGRATION STATISTICS NATIONALITY YEAR TOTALS 400 800 1200 1600 1880 Japanese 1890 xx 1900 xxxx 1880 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Chinese 1890 XXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1900 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1880 Italian 1890 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1900 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1880 xxxxxxxx German 1890 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1900 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1880 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Irish 1890 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1900 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census t Population Statistics; Frank Speth, I1History of Agricultural Labor in Sonoma County, II (Microfilm 1938), 145A. APPENDIX E 119 NATIVITY OF THE POPULATION OF SONOMA COUNTY 1880-1910 1880 1890 1900 1910 Total Population 25 ,926 32,721 38,lt80 48,392 Native Born White 19,833 23,985 30,225 36,762 Foreign Born White 6,093 8,736 8,225 10,405 Australia 3lt 37 42 Austria 36 61 122 Canada (Other than French) 673 710* 617 '"(23 Denmark 177 242 327 England 513 729 672 699 France 154 210 234 329 Germany 996 1,520 1,538 1,969 Ireland 1,397 1,259 910 823 Italy 1,026 1,266 2,715 Mexico 41 27 10 q1 Norway 50 52 1411 Portugal 238 321 346 Scotland 177 198 195 208 Sweden 148 179 180 353 Switzerland 779 793 920 Chinese 904 1t 172 599 287 Japanese 74 148 5511 Indians 339 297 316 340 Colored 60 45 %OF POPULATION BY RACE AND NATIVITY SONOMA COU NTY 1880-1910 White Year White NatIve t:'oreign Negro Other 1880 95.0 ----- -,---...... 0.2 4.8 1890 95.2 72.7 23.0 0.1 lL7 1900 97.2 77.6 19.6 0.1 2.8 1910 97.5 76.0 21.5 0.1 2.14 SJURCE: Frank Speth, History of Afaioulture and Lawr in Sonoma Count,r 1880-1900, 45A; Sonoma Democrat, anuary 1, 1891; sonoma oemocrat~ January 7, 1891; Warren Thompson, Growth and Chan,s in CaiIfornia Populations, Los Angeles: The Haynes Foundation, 9;;, i-BS. APPENDIX F 120 UNITED STATES FARM POPULATION: FARMS AND LAND IN FARMS Farm No. of Average Year Poeulation Farms %Increase Aoreage %Chanse (1,000) (r;ono) 1880 21,973 4,009 134 1890 24,771 4,565 + 13.8 137 + 2.1 1900 29,857 5,740 + 25.7 147 + 7.2 CALIFORNIA FARM POPULATION: FARMS AND LAND IN FARMS Farm No. of Average Year Poeulation Farms %Increase Acreage %Chanse ( 1,000) (~) 1880 24 462 1890 283 36 + 50.0 405 - 12.3 1900 389 53 + 47.2 397 - 1.9 SONOMA COUNTY FARM POPULATION: FARMS AN'D LAND IN FARMS Farm No. of AVerage Year Po~ulation Farms %Increase Aoreage %Change ( ,000) (1,000) 1880 2,229 309 1890 2,886 + 29.5 245 - 20.7 1900 3,676 + Z7.7 213 - 13.4 SOURCE: Historioal Statistics of the United States, Series K 1-18, 81, 392; Statistical Abstracts of O.S. 1976, 4~7-51; Frank Speth, 'tHistory of Agricultural Labor," MicrofiliTi 135, Berkeley: Univeristy of California Press, 1938, 19a. APPENDIX G 121 FARM SI ZE IN OONOMA COUNlY 1880-1900 YEA R ACRES TOTALS 1880 1890 1900 1-3 No. .30 % .81 4-9 No. .73 195 343 % 3.27 6.75 9.38 10-19 No. .83 250 413 % 3.72 8.68 12.90 20-49 No. 235 556 715 % 10.52 19.60 21.00 50-99 No. 313 409 508 % 14.00 1L1.14 13.80 100-174 No. 581 % 115-249 No. 1139 262 % 250-499 No. 1208 355 % 54.00 39.00 32.80 500-999 No. 183 195 191 % 8.20 6.75 5.20 1,000-4,999 No. 130 132 142 % 5.80 4.55 3.87 Average Size 309 245 213 Percent Difference -20.70 -13)10 Total Farms 2229 2886 Percent Difference 3676 +29.40 +27 .30 SOURCE: Frank Speth, IIHistory of' Agricultural Labor in Sonoma CountYl if Microfilm 135, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1938, 19A. APPENDIX H 122 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 1890 - 1900 SONOMA COUNTY 1890 1900 Wheat (Bushels) 251,254 24-r;rri7 :ha4~8 Corn II 142,243 182,140 + 28.0 Oats " 154,724 732,620 +373.0 Barley " 139,887 136,990 - 2. 1 Potatoes " 319,890 233,807 - 26.9 Hops (Pounds) 1,263,610 X Hay (Tons) 82,560 106,765 + 29.0 Orchard Prd. II X 927,831 Grapes " 32,524 47,238 + 45.2 Wine (Gallons) 1,756,300 1,193,716 - 32.0 Milk II 9,820,343 10,167,973 + 3.5 Butter (Pounds) 2,971,664 2,093,892 - 29.5 Poultry II 319,091 492,496 + 54.3 Eggs (Dozen) 1,300,902 3,218,450 +147.4 Livestock ($ Value) 2,091,349 2,291,137 + 9.5 SOURCE: Frank Speth, "History of Agricultural and Labor In Sonoma County," Microfilm 135, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1938, 23. APPENDIX I 123 MARKET REPORT SELECTED CROPS IN SONOMA COUNTY 1891 - 1896 CROP AMOUNT 1891 1892 1B93 1894 1B95 1896 Wheat, 1.50 1. 70 1.30 1 .10 1.05 1.20 per 100 lbs. Barley 1 .10 1. 70 .90 .90 .90 .90 Oats 1.60 1.40 1.35 1.05 1.05 1.10 Corn 1. 75 1.45 .50 1.25 1.25 .90 Hay, per ton B.OO 9.00 11.00 10.50 10.50 10.00 Butter, .16 .24 .27 .20 .20 .24 per lb. Eggs, .28 .25 .30 .22 .20 .23 per doz. Beef cattle, 5.00 6.00 6.50 4.50 4.50 4.00 per lb. SOURCE: Petaluma Courier, March 18, 1891, January 20, 1892, November 16, 1893, November 24, 1894, November 20, 1895, November 18, 1896. APPENDIX J 124 ASSESSED EVALUATION SONOMA COUNTY 1890-1897 ASSESSED ACRE PERSONAL CITY RURAL YEAR EVALUATION EVALUATED PROPERTY EVALOATED EVALUATED 1890 29,889,424 2,888,720 15,920,260 1891 29,828,971 556,985 2,933,120 15,408,205 1892 3,748,849 1893 29,305,590 838,794 1894 28,234,615 851,377 3,519,051 *6,933,210 21,778,915 1895 1896 27,175,145 853,404 2,810,635 6,456,408 13,801,255 1897 26,329,320 861,221 2,764,595 6,152,645 13,583,415 %Increase %Decrease 111 .2 14.6 *Assessed Evaluation includes Sonoma and Cloverdale. **City Evaluation based on Santa Rosa, Petaluma and Healdsburg. SOURCE: Sonoma Democrat, July 19, 1890, March 8, 1890, July 25, 1891, March 1892, July 18, 1894, March 7, 1896, July 22, 1896; Sonoma Index Tribune, March 30, 1893; Santa Rosa Democrat, April 14, 1894, May 7, 1894. APPENDIX K 125 SONOMA COUNTY BANKING ASSETS AND CAPITAL 1890-1893 1890 BANK ASSETS DEPOSITS CASH CAPITAL BANK OF SONOMA C. 580,763 216,532 15,660 300,000 SAVINGS BANK S.R. 708,560 413,275 63,245 200,000 S.R. BANK 887,422 413,707 52,766 300,000 EXCHANGE BANK 143,849 23,665 22,673 120,000 CLOVERDALE BANK 129,655 59,853 10,100 57,000 Total 2,450,307 1,127 ,032 164,444 977,000 %Change 1891 BANK OF SONOMA C. 561,918 180,242 18,449 300,000 SAVINGS BANK S.R. 699,027 390,222 44,906 200,000 S.R. BANK 870,793 404,481 66,185 300,000 EXCHANGE BANK 157,513 37,297 11,948 120,000 CLOVERDALE BANK 130,245 39,364 6,700 57,000 Total 2,277,734 1,016,206 148,488 977,000 %Change - 7.0 - 9.8 - 9.7 1892 BANK OF SONOMA C. 544,362 186,474 10,563 300,000 SAVINGS BANK S. R 720,265 375,803 11,335 200,000 S.R. BANK 845,281 393,045 28,479 300,000 EXCHANGE BANK 199,845 66,626 11,526 120,000 CLOVERDALE BANK 111,093 46,289 10,400 57,000 Total 2,420,846 1,067,237 72,303 977,000 %Change + 6.2 + 5.1 - 51.0 1893 BANK OF HEALDSBURG 229,279 114,293 14,766 85,600 SONOMA VALLEY BANK 151,903 68,731 8,795 50,000 CLOVERDALE BANK 98,779 40,854 10,533 EXCHANGE BANK 209,502 81,461 20,217 120,000 %Change* + 3.2 + 7.4 + 40.7 Figures for 1894-96 not available at Recorder's Office due to change in 1893 law that banks were no longer required to record assets and capital. *Percent change for Cloverdale and Exchange Banks only. SOURCE: Sonoma County Recorder's Office, Statement of Banking Capital #165, 1876-1894 and Statement of Banking Assets #166, 1876-1894. APPENDIX L 126 FARM ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP IN CALIFORNIA 1891 10,000 Members or Voters per Unit Organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 Grange Membership October, 1875 Alliance Membership June, 1890 Alliance Membership Potential Voters June, 1890 Populist Vote (First major) 1890-1892 of the Southern Farm Alliance. na, 1955. APPENDIX M 121 AGRARIAN PLATFORMS 1889-92 GRANGERS NATIONALISTS 1. Direct election of Senators Direct election of Senators 2. Government control of Government ownership of railroads transportation 3. Government control of postal Government ownership of telegraph communication 4. Free coinage of silver Currency reform-postal banks 5. Australian ballot Australian ballot 6. Semi-annual tax collections 7. Restricions of trust monopolies 8. Reassessment of railroad property 9. Government fire insurance 10. Iniative-referendum 11. Proportional representation 12. Municipal ownership of utilities 13. Improved water conditions S.F. FARM ALLIANCE POPULISTS 1. Direct election of Adopt national platform - St. President, Vice-pres. and Louis Senators 2. Government control of Adopt state platform - transportation Stockton 3. Government control of postal Initiative, referendum telegraph 4. Free coinage of silver Imperative mandate 5. Australian ballot Proportional representation 6. Semi-annual collection of Reaffirm state platform taxes adopted - Los Angeles, Ootober 22, 1891 7. Restrict monopolies 8. Reassessment of rai lroad property 9. Government Illltual fire insurance 10. Halt speculation of farm products 11. OpPosition to liquor and saloons 12. No discrimination in voting 13. Improved education 14. Business rights of wife in death of a spouse SOURCE: Sonoma Democrat, Oct. 1891: June 18, 1892; Weekl~ Nationalists, May to December, 1889. APPENDIX N 128 SONOMA MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY POPULIST PLATFORMS 1892-1896 COUNTY SANTA ROSA MUNICIPAL 1892 1. Adopt national platform of St. Louis No Party and state platform at Stockton 2. Institution of initiative and refer endum, imperative mandate and pro portional representation 3. Reaffirm state platform of Peoples' Party adopted in Los Angeles, Oct. 22, 1891 1894 1. Free silver No Party 2. Currency reform 3. Tariff reform (tariff for revenue) 4. Railroad reforms 1. Currency reform 1. Endorse national party platform 2. Free silver at 16-1 2. Free coinage 3. Abolish national banks 3. Government ownership transportation 4. Opposed to interest bonds 4. Direct elections 5. Payment of debts in any money desired 5. Municipal ownership of by debtor utitlites 6. Pure city owned water 7. Improved sewer system 8. Reasonable taxation and use of public funds 9. Compliance to wishes of electorate by public officials SOURCE: SONOMA DEMOCRAT, June 18, 1892; May 4, 1894; February 22, 1896, July 25, 1896; July 25, 1896. APPENDIX 0 129 SANTA ROSA CITY ELECTION RESULTS 1892 OFFICE DEMOCRATS No. REPUBLICANS No. Mayor W.E. McOnnell 395 *E.F. Wood- 559 ward City Council E. Harris 495 *C.N. Collins 520 F.P. Grace 492 *G.A. Tupper 539 W.B. Griegs 408 *A.L. Fisher 495 City Clerk *J .L. Jordan 500 W.B. Hosmer 414 City Attorney *W.F. Cowan 531 C.S. Farquar 446 City G.A. Hocker 385 1M. V. Vander- 590 Treasurer hoof Street J.W. Swank 487 *D.W. Cosard 498 COllJl]issioner Marshal M.H. Peerman 465 *L. Brieten- 518 bach City Recorder W.N. Seawell 5!J9 N.R. Shaw 419 City Assessor J.A. Miller 399 IT.H. Hoswell 505 ------OFFICE POPULIST * WINNERS DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN TOTALS TOTALS Mayor -,------E.F. Woodard 463 avge. 500 avge. City Council ------C.N. Collins ------G.A. Tupper 48.1% 51.9% ------E.F. Harris 3 elected 8 elected City Clerk ------J.L. Jordan City Attorney ------W.F. Cowan City ------M. V. Vander- Treasurer hoof Street ------D.W. Cosard Commissioner Marshall ------L. Brieten bach City Recorder ------W.N. Seawell City Assessor ------J.H. Hoswell SOURCE: Sonoma Democrat April 9, 1892 APPENDIX P 130 1894 ELECTION RESULTS: SELECTED STATE OFFICES AND MUNICIPALITIES IN SONOMA COUNTY 1DWN AREAS PAR T ytt LOCATION D R PIP P D R PIP P Governor Lt. Governor Healdsburg 272 295 84 18 249 295 87 18 Petaluma 342 257 183 18 323 376 158 21 Santa Rosa 529 543 189 57 502 563 129 57 sub TOTAL 1143 1095 456 93 1074 1234 374 96 TOTAL PARTY VOTE 2832 3316 1091 230 2262 3345 1085 236 Sec. State Controller Healdsburg 243 292 84 20 272 343 85 1~ Petaluma 301 407 129 28 240 467 167 10 Santa Rosa 458 592 140 53 349 713 145 40 sub TOTAL 1002 1291 353 101 861 1583 391 64 TOTAL PARTY VOTE 2909 3455 1029 163 2127 4067 1016 160 %OF VOTE BY PARTY PAR T Y CANDIDATE piP PIP & P ?/p&DeiOO Governor 16.3 19.6 57.3 Lt. Governor 13.4 16.9 52.1 Seo. State 12.8 16.5 !l9.3 Controller 15.2 17 .6 '13.3 Average: 14.4 Overall election: 14.6 COUNTY ELECTION SUMMARY CANDIDATE RESULT Governor Lt. Governor Sec. state Controller Total County Vote 7469 7128 1031 7364 %PIP Vote 14.4% 15.2% 111.6% 13.7% %PIP & Demo Vote 52.5% 46.9% 56.9% !l2.6S Majority 484 1083 946 19lK) %Total Vote 14.5% 32.3% Z7.3% 1I1.7J *P/P = Peoples I Party; P = Prohibitionist Party SOURCE: Sonoma Democrat, November 6, 18911; Petaluma Courier} November 10, 1894. APPENDIX Q 131 1894 ELECTION RESULTS: SELECTED COUNTY OFFICES AND MUNICIPALITIES IN SONOMA COUNTY RURAL AREAS PAR T y* LOCATION D R PIP p D R PIP P Sheriff Count~ Clerk Sebastapol 111 198 0 49 144 206 0 19 Geyerservi lle 54 92 9 227 82 79 0 10 Aq. Cal. 28 44 5 1 35 32 1 9 Forestville 30 83 0 0 34 99 0 0 Glen Ellen 37 84 0 10 58 63 0 16 Bodega 45 45 4 1 50 46 4 0 Penngrove 58 79 34 9 68 78 26 2 Cloverdale C. 53 71 47 9 66 77 29 5 Cloverdale T. 42 68 40 5 49 73 27 4 East Windsor 43 68 40 5 51 70 9 2 West Windsor 64 69 27 0 74 74 0 0 Sonoma 39 80 6 2 32 91 2 2 Lewis 77 87 16 3 84 75 10 4 Llano 48 81 39 0 62 88 22 0 Wilson 72 90 51 11 72 113 25 9 TOTAL 801 1239 302 129 961 1264 155 63 " PIP TOTAL 12.1% 6.3% " PIP & DEMO VOTE 44.6" 45.6% Auditor Assessor Sebastapol 94 233 0 19 137 191 6 29 Geyserville 76 78 7 14 51 81 40 7 Aq. Cal. 32 33 1 9 31 3!! 2 7 Foresville 28 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 Glen Ellen 4 63 1 13 49 61 1 18 Bodega 56 35 3 1 58 36 2 1 Penngrove 49 104 26 2 68 77 28 2 Cloverdale C. 50 79 38 5 56 76 37 6 Cloverdale T. 40 78 32 3 !!!! 74 32 4 East Windsor 64 56 9 0 !!1 78 15 1 West Windsor 90 54 0 0 67 73 0 0 Sonoma 43 79 5 1 38 86 3 1 Lewis 90 69 15 3 73 82 18 4 Llano 62 84 25 0 55 88 28 0 Wilson 45 145 20 8 71 110 20 7 TOTAL 863 1253 182 76 839 122!! 232 87 % PIP TOTAL 7.8% 9.7% % PIP & DEMO VOTE 4!!.0% 44.9% AVERAGE %PIP VOTE: 14.3% *P/P = Peoples' Party; P = Prohibitionist Party SOURCE: Sonoma Democrat, November 10, 1894. APPENDIX R 132 SANTA ROSA CITY ELECTION RESULTS 1894 OFFICE DEMOCRATS No. REPUBLICANS No. Mayor L.W. Juillard 454 *E.F. Wood- 61lt ward City Counci 1 W. Todd 547 *F. Berka 689 G.V. Davis 442 *T.P. Keegan 755 J .W. Crow 379 *J .S. Wilson 581 City Clerk *C.L. Mobley 647 H.H. Chur- 511 chill City Attorney *W.F. Cowan 613 J.M.Thompson 5ltlt City W.H. Lee 569 1M. V. Vander- 589 Treasurer hoof Street J .M. Goodman 408 *D.W. Cosard 762 COTl11lissioner City Marshall J.R. Hankel 585 *W. J. Stead- 588 man City Recorder *M .K.McCorkle 616 J.H. Reed 523 City Assessor W.G.Hendley 482 *r.c. John stone 782 ------_ .... --_ ... OFFICE POPULIST *WINNERS DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN '!OTALS TOTALS Mayor ------E. F. Woodard 513 avge. 630 avge. City Council ------F. Berka ------T.P. Keegan 1.i4.9% 55.1% ------J.S. Wilson 3 elected 8 elected City Clerk ------C.L. Mobley City Attorney ------W.F. Cowan City ------M.V. Vander- Treasurer hoof Street ------D.W. Cosard Commissioner City Marshall ------W.J. Steadman City Recorder ------M.K. McCorkle City Assessor P.C. John stone SOURCE: Sonoma Democrat, April 7, 1894 APPENDIX S 133 THE COMPARISON OF PARTY PLATFORMS IN SANTA ROSA MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF 1896 POPULISTS DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICANS *First: We endorse the First: Rigid economy First: Free water for national and state in management of public domestic purposes Peoples' Party platform affairs with strict control of funds Second: Municipal *Seoond: Establishment ownership of lighting of free coinage of gold Second: Substantial and silver at 161 and and permanent Third: Safe and reform of currency improvement of public economical sewers streets and *Third: Government thoroughfares Fourth: Not included. ownership of railroads Possible error in and direct election of Third: Municipal reporting president, V.P., ownership of water senators works Fifth: Continued progress in the Fourth: Municipal Fourth: Free water improvement of streets ownership of utilities city owned for domestic and s idewalk s (gas, lights, water) use Sixth: Rigid economy Fifth: Pure water free Fifth: Permanent in government in for domestic purposes adequate sewer disposal keeping with the need system and growth of city *Slxth: Support of those candidates who Seventh: Fair property stand for city owned tax assessment water system Eighth: Encouragement Seventh: Council to of home business make thorough study to develop answer to sewer problem Eighth: Reasonable taxation rates and city improvements to benefit the greatest number Ninth: Public servants should abide by wishes of people * NOTE: The first, second, third and sixth issues of the Populists' platform were not included in either the Democratic of Republican platforms SOURCE: Sonoma Democrat, Feb. 22, 1896; March 7, 1896 APPENDIX T 134 1896 ELECTION RESULTS: SELECTED OFFICES AND MUNICIPALITIES IN SONOMA COUNTY TOWN AREAS PAR T Y LOCATION R D P R D-P/P R D-P/P R D-P/P Pres. Electors confessman Assembl~ 16 Assembl:t 17 Healdsburg 398 371 46 37 386 307 46 Petaluma 448 321 57 410 330 387 321 Santa Rosa 669 604 49 620 616 575 694 sub TOTAL 1515 1296 152 1401 1332 692 767 575 694 %PIP-FUSION 5.1 48.7 52.5 54.6 TOTAL PARTY* 4041 3580 472 3639 3203 1617 1598 1634 1770 %PIP-FUSION 4.1 47.3 49.8 52.3 ELECTION SUMMARY CAN DID ATE RESULT Pres. Electors Congressman Assembly 16 Assembly 17 Total Vote 8093 6841 3215 3404 Majority Vote R - 461 R - 337 R - 18 D - 136 %Majority 11 .4 9.2 1. 1 7.6 * Prohibitionists, Socialists, National Democrats, National Party Elector Votes totaling 115 not included. SOURCE: Sonoma Democrat, November 7, 1896 APPENDIX U 135 1896 ELECTION RESULTS: SELECTED OFFICES AND MUNICIPALITIES IN SONOMA COUNTY RURAL AREAS PAR T Y LOCATION R D PIP R D-P/P R D-P/P R D-P!J5 Pres. Electors confessman Assembl, 16 Assembl;t 17 Sebastopl N&S 207 146 19 136 170 32 Occidental 91 67 75 57 78 66 Forrestville 100 60 90 54 80 67 Bodega 49 47 41 42 46 40 Penngrove 129 82 13 121 87 115 97 Wilson 153 72 24 143 81 14 Sonoma 93 44 80 46 71 66 Geyserville 103 86 10 95 87 95 80 Aqua Caliente 60 31 90 54 52 38 Cloverdale 81 36 5 82 74 73 73 Cloverdale Town 89 66 26 80 70 80 66 Lewis 86 115 16 83 12 77 134 Llano 96 84 16 88 90 93 100 East Windsor 90 51 10 78 54 70 59 West Windsor 84 83 12 67 93 75 86 TOTAL: PARTY VOTE 1511 1087 132 1408 1037 1503 1102 606 702 CANDIDATE VOTE 2713 2445 905 1388 % PIP-FUSION 4.8 43.4 44.4 50.5 SOURCE: Petaluma Courier, November 4, 1896; Sonoma Democrat, December 7, 1896. Bibliography 140 A. PRIMARY SOURCES NEWSPAPERS: Eureka Watchman, 1890-1898. Healdsburg Enterprise, 1892-1896. Petaluma Argus Courier, 1892-1898. Populist, June, December 1896. Sebastopol Times, 1890-1900. Sonoma Democrat, 1890-1900. Sonoma Index-Tribune, 1892-1898. GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS: California, California Blue Books, Sacramento: State Printing Office, 1890-1900. California Secretary of State, Statement of the Vote at the General Election Held November 8, 1892, Miscellaneous Publication No. 546, Sacramento, 1892. Historical Statistics of U.S.: Colonial Time to 1970 Part I, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Washington D.C., 1975. U.S., Department of State Board of Agriculture, ~ournal of A.P.P., 31 Session, 1894, 2:11-44. DIRECTORIES: Oppenheimer, H.E. Compo Sonoma County Directory, San Francisco: Sonoma County Publishing Co., 1899. Polk's Petaluma Directory, Los Angeles: R.C. Polk Publishing Co., 1896. Santa Rosa Directory 1896, Santa Rosa: G.M. Williams Publishing Co., 1895. B. SECONDARY SOURCES 141 Asby, N.B. The Riddle of the Sphinx. Des Moines: Industrial Publishing Co., 1890. Argersinger, Peter H. Populism and Politics. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 197ij. Bellamy, Edward. Looking Backward 2000-1887. New York: Harper, 1888. Provided Populists with argument regarding need for government control of sources of wealth. Billington, Ray. Westward Expansion: A History of the American Frontier. New York: The McMillan Co., 1960. Gives excellent introduction and description of the Populist movement. Buck, Solon. The Agrarian Crusade. New Haven: Yale Press, 1920. Comprehensive history of Populist movement. Cunningham, Raymond J., ed. The Populist in Historical Perspective. Boston: C.C. Heath and Company, 1968. Synthesis of articles regarding Populism. Davis, Horace. "California Bread Stuffs." Journal of Political Economy II, 189-394. Destler, Charles McArthur. 'Western Radicalism 1865-1901: Concepts and Origins." Mississippi Valley Historical Review 31 (December, 1944):44. Progressive interpretation of Populism. Diamond, William. "Urban and Rural Voting 1896. II American Historical Review 46:41, 286-93. Griffiths, David B. "Anti Monopoly Movements in California, 1873-1898." Southern California Quarterl~ 52:93-121, June 1970. Hackney, Sheldon, ed. "Neither Revolution Nor Revolt. It In PO)UliSm: The Critical Issues, Boston: Little, Brown &Co., 1971, 137- ij6. Hall, Tom G. "California Populism at the Grass Roots: The Case of Tulare County, 1892." Southern California Quarterly 49(2): 193-204, June 1967. Hicks, John D. "Some Parallels With Populism in the Twentieth Century." Social Education 8 (November 1944):297-301. Hicks, John D. The POrulist Revolt. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 193. Classic work on Populist movement from beginning to decline in 1896. 142 Higham, John. Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism 1860- 1925. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955. Heintz, William, "The Role of Chinese Labor in Viticulture and Winemaking in 19th Century California." Master's Thesis, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California, 1977. Hofstadter, Richard. "The Folklore of Populism. II In Populism: The Critical Issues, edited by Sheldon Hackney, Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1971, 67-78. __ The Age of Reform. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955, 328. Believed Populists failed to understand the causes of their problem, thus developed nonexisting conspiracies and scapegoating rather than real analysis. Jelinek, Lawrence J. H~a~r~v~e~s~t~~~~~__~~~~~__~~~~~ Agriculture. San Francisco: In Essays on 39(3):34-46, Summer 1971. Kauer, Ralph. "The Workingmen's Party in California. II Pacific Historical Review. 13:278-291, September 1944. Key, V.D. Jr. "A Theory of Critioal Elections." Journal of Politics, 17 February 17, 1955, 3-18. Laughlin, J. Laurence. "Causes of Agricultural Unrest. II Atlantic Monthly 78 (November 1896):577-585. Believed Populist movement due to boom and wild expansion. Me Canse, Mable. "The Peoples I Party of California, 1892-1894. 11 Master's thesis, Stanford University, 1925. Mc Math, Robert C. The Populist van~ard: A Histor~ of the Southern Farm Alliance. (Chapel Hill: Unversity of Nort Carolina Press, 1955) • Mc Fee, Ward M. "Local Interests and Railroad Regulation in California duri ng the Granger Decade." Paoific Historical Review, 50-66. Contains interesting information about regulation in Sonoma and Marin counties. Nash, Gerald D. State Government and Eoonomic Development. Berkeley: University of CalifornIa Press, 1964. GOod Bibliography. Nugent, Walter. Structure of Amerioan Sooial History. Bloomington: University Press, 1981. 143 Paul, Rodman Wilson. "The California Grain War: The Granger Challenge." Pacific Historical Review 27, 331-345. Covers the growth of the Granger movement in relation to wheat farmers. Paxon, Frederick. lithe Pacific Railroad and the Disappearance of the Frontier." American Historical Association (1) 1907, 105-118. Petersen, Eric Falk. lithe End of an Era: California's Gubernatorial Election of 1894.11 Pacific Historical Review. 38(2) :141-156, May 1969. Apex of Peoples' Party strength in California politics. Good account. Pollack I Norman, editor. The Populist Mind. Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill Co., Inc., 1967. Anti -revisionist who found Populist movement beneficial. Book contains a compilation of primary sources relating to Populist movement. Rogin, Michael "Feud Between California Populists. It Pacific Historical Review 27 (August 1958): 281-298. • "California Populism and the System of 1896." Western Political ------Quarterl~ XXII (March 1969), 179-196. Factors in Populist electoral support, 1892-1896, and effect of 1896 election. __• The Intellectuals and McCarthy. Cambridge: M.LT. Press, 1967. Rosenstone, Steven J., Behr, Roy L., Lazarus, Edward H. Third Parties in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 198~. Saloutos, Theodore, ed. Po~ulism: Reaction or Reform. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 968. Saxon 7 Alexander. "San Francisco Labor and Populist and Progressive Insurgencies." Pacific Historical Review (Nov. 1965): 421-438. Several pages deal with the merger between California Populists and urban labor. Schlesinger, Arthur M., Sr. H.,..,i:::.;s;....;t....;;o.;;."r;L...... ,;;...;.-.-T::~...... ;;...;;..::;::;;...;;..;;:~~;;..,;;;.;.....;;";;;~;;...,.....,,...,:..;;..;;;;,;;;.;= III The Gilded Age of Politics. 19'(j. Shannon, Fred L. The Farmer's Last Frontier: Agrioulture 1860-1897. New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1945. Well done general history of agriculture during period. Spencer, C. Olin, Jr. California Politics 1844-1920. San Francisco: Boyd and Fraser, Publishers, 1981. Contains chapter dealing with California politics 1866-1900 and several interesting pages on Populism. 144 Speth, Frank. Histor Microfilm 135, Berke~le~y~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Taggart, Harold F. liThe Party Realignment of 1896 in California. II Pacific Historical Review 8(4):435-52, December 1939. "California and the Silver Question in 1895." Pacific Historical --Review (June 1937) :249-252. "The Election of 1898 in California History." Pacific Historical Review 191, 357-68. A review of the election on 1898 in California and the decline of the Populists. __ . "Thomas Vincent Cator, Populist Leader in California. II California Historical Society Quarterly XXVII (1949): 46-55. Contains a summary of the life of T.V. Cator and Populism. · "The Senatorial Election of 1893 in California." California --Historical Society 19( 1) :59-73, March 1970. Valuable for California Populism. Taylor, Carl C. The Farmer's Movement 1620-1920. New York: American Book Co., 1953. Thernstrom, Stephan. A History of the American People Since 1865, Vol. II. Boston: Hardcourt, Brace, Jovanovich Publishers, 1984. Thompson, Warren. Growth and Chan e in California Po ulation. Los Angeles: The Haynes Foundation, Tindall, George Brown. A Populist Reader: Selections From the Works of American POEulist Leaders. 2nd ed. Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1976. Unger, Irwin, ed. POEulism: Nostalgic or Progressive? 2nd ed. New York: Rand, McNally &Co., 1966. Walters, Donald E. "The Feud Between California Populist T.V. Cator and Democrats James McGuire and James Barry." Pacific Historical Review 27, 281-98, August 1958. Discussion of the controversy between Populist and Democratic leaders for the control of the election of 1898. · "Populism in California 1889-1900." Ph.D. dissertation, -----University of California, 1952. Standard for California Populism. · "The Period of the Populist Party." In The Rumble of California --Politics, 1848-1970, edited by Royce D. Delmatier, Clarence F. McIntosh and Earl G. Waters. New York: Wiley, 1970, 99-124. Williams, Clyde H. "Early Populism in California: An Evaluation of the Election of 1894." Master's thesis, California State University, 1970. 145 Williams, Harold. The Democratic Party in Californis Politics 1880-1896. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1977. Vann Woodward, C. liThe Promise of Populism." California Politics 1846 1920, 47. Ed!ted by Spencer T. Olin. San Francisco: Boyd and Fraser Publishing, 1981. The Po u11 st Herita e the Intellectual. Batton Royce: ----Louisiana State University, C. SOURCES 146 Cottern, Judith Ann. County Historical Survex. California Room, Sonoma County Library. Hansen, Glayds. Historical Material in S.F.P.L. California Collection, California Room, Sonoma County Library. Herman t Audrey. A Sample of Local History. California Room, Sonoma County Library. Howell, Warren R. Early newspapers and periodicals of California and the West. Sonoma County Library. Mathes, W. "Documents for History of Sonoma County 1848-1906." California Historical Societ Quarterl (Fall 1980), California Peterson, Dan. Historical Research Bibliosraphx of Sonoma. California Room, Sonoma County Library. Rocq, Margaret Miller. California Local History and Bibliography and Union List. Sonoma State University Library. Shideler, James H. and Lee, Lawrence B. (comps.) A Preliminary List of References for the Histor of A iculture in California. Davis, California: gricultural istory Center, p ate by Richard Onsi Davis, 1974. Sonoma Countx History. Bibliography and Union List. Sonoma State Library. Sonoma Count Certificate of Elections 1850-1899. Microfilm, California Room, Sonoma County ibrary. Van Ravensway, Carolyn. A Guide to the Edward Mannion Looal Historx:. California Room, Sonoma County Library. Weger, Francis. A Select Bibliosraphioal GUide to California Historx:. Sonoma State University Library. Winfred, Gregory. Union List of Newspapers 1851-1936. Sonoma State University Library. SONOMA COUNTY HISTORIES: 147 Finley 1 Earnest 1 ed. A History of Sonoma I Its People and Resources. Santa Rosa: Press Democrat Publisher, 1937. Gregory, Thomas J. History of Sonom County. Lewis Publishing Co., 1889. Contains history of county until 1889 with biographical sketches of leading men and women of the county to 1911. Menefee, Cambell A. Historical and Descriptive Sketch Book of Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino and Lake Counties. Fresno: California History Books, 1873, 356 pages. Sketches of topography 1 history 1 scenery and popular attractions. Munro, Fraser. History of Sonoma County. San Francisco: Bowers and Co., 1880, 717 pages. Includes geology, topography, Spanish settlements and political history I early history and settlement. Biographies of prominent settlers of county. Thompson, Robert. Sonoma County History. Philadelphia: L.H. Everts and Co., 1877. Tuomey, Honoria. History of Sonoma County. Vol I, San Francisco: S.J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1926. Deals with Sonoma County from Cortez with discussion on Farm Bureau and Grange. Excludes politics. Not valuable after 1880.